ον 


“ἡ 


Heielet ΡΥ 


ΣΝ 


εἰ φ ἐφ ἐφ οί τ ἰδέ 
impatodadeta feletetate 


oiele 


etejnte! 


wen 
᾿ " «\* LT ἐφ Φιοέ δ δ 
τσὴ οἰ οὐφοὶ sini atetet 


«ἰσ δι 


lat 


einieel 
sermtetet σι 


abe 


ivieie 
eed 


pajeieiel 


aioimfeiet* 
εὐ joreteret 
7 ate 
εἰσίν 
ἐφ εν φ (“6 
eee etetet 


on 


a4 vigor 


jae meni eet 1“ 
wieiaiapaieiete 
jahatelaiela(olatotet 
etelel(apet<t=(otot > 
iajaiadsialateteiet 
eieletettte babe 
jotefaieiot= 

wletale 


" 
jotet 
ole wietet 
dapeteie(el= 


siitieietaiere! 


ΠΥ γόνον 


joimtetete 


ol atelotete(etel 


εἰν ἐξ ς 


jaded et of hehe of 
ἐφέσει τ τὐ {55 


a etete(int= 


ale otetet 
falactei tot 
aiajeioiaiore 
e(ejedeiateat™ 
palelel= 


whale 


ts 


ΔΉ ofeiniotete ot 


- 
ayete 


aeheteiet 
- 


haf εἰσι. t= 


ἀγα γα =! 
«ἰόν et 
ΣΝ 
«ἐφ νοι ἰσέσισ 


ole 
eleetel 


«ἰεὐἰσ ἐσ σφισι imiehe elm 


φἰπἰ εἰν σι 
ateisioit! 


eet 
el eiaie 


ἰδ φ οἰ 656. 


δ δέον 
γεν 
Δ γνῦν 

Tefabeteiet et 


sete 


elepei=(oie 


aad οἰκί οί ett 


τ οἰ τ σι σι “ἐσ wtwtet 
foi = jel detotetet 
eleiaterete 
foiaejatote) 


«| 
jaja ot 
iain aimieletet 


coher 
eherenpere(el® 

ἐφ σιν σινσι 
. a 


lajetate 
sink (ai 


tah Φισ σφιν ele 
ἐσ ἐ αὐ σιν ἐν 


ΝΥ τ νὴ 
ete (aielot 


- 


« 


siolel 


ele (oladeind 
fetelereret 


delat 


int 
prabererereyr reyes 
yuteret 


ee! 
jal sjelaie: 
eyed 


aieini* 


ΡΥ τ νὴν 


ale {τ {|σ{5| 


ἐπ σι κί π 


ε- 

pjajetat@ier* 
wie le letetetot 

elioiateletate 


ΩΝ 
apeieieieieto(et 
eho ler eie 


τὸ (οἰ εν ole 
jetototet 


ΡΣ νων τ 
δι φιε οἰοἠοί οἰ εἰ οή 
ἐφ δ οί 7 .5:.| 5 [οἱ] 
ΨΥ 

jaloleloiai=iet~ 

jaimieielelet 
eietareiet 4 
vies jehetetetatet 
(ajetetatatsinien ti 
-\ foterefeiatet 4 4 
ie 


ψί 
ont 
fal etatefatet 


ΩΣ 


atayateisieieisieiel= 
νον, jojniete(etetetet 
iajpeleieteietele 
eistetaisiereiel® 
(al efaoledaiet=t 


ΡΤ να 


ot 
. alist chopeialetetetel 
ah fe ieee ote etd ete διὸ | eieie(eie(ete 
GA ainialajalotmernts tT 
>» Wehr ijetmlntelaicioiwio(riticetisr yar 
‘ ; iatoieioia(sie(s( sister * 
leieiete( “Ὁ wiele 


“1:5 


doiafeter 
( ejeret 
So abal 


ale el~ 


ΜΡ ΤΩ 


ΜΉΝ 


ΡΥ ΜΗ Υ  Ὑγ}} 


wletet 
ΜΉΤ 
tondael = tet 


΄ 
eleter* 


ΜΝ 
we 


δι ἐφ Φισίσι 


jenbeiet 


φέσι 
aetetoirt 


i 


pstaisiete 
‘ 


= 


«“ἰφί δ οσ 


ΜΡ wie! 
sole! 
tom 
wimiefolet 
{etal dintedete! 


ΨΥ 
Ἰωιφήφέσιδι 
ot 


eieielstete 
on 


cieteliet 


ejeiejene 
ΡΝ 
ΡΥ οὶ 
soretetetet 
ΜΉ νυνὶ 
ἘΡΥ ote 


ΣΡ  νϑὴν jor 
Tieieieioteisietels 


wy parse rp ae joistedatotot 
in" - 
dejeieiet 


eiwietoqel 


ὁ abies 


] 
edane (etet 


7 


hate! τίσ Ps 
οἱ Sirarpoty ae 
prarernt yo(ate ts! 
ἐφισ οὐ σέ εἰ » 

ve 


stetoiet et 


wl 
σι οἰκο 


ΩΣ 
ἡ ὀ4φ|Φ19 
“ἰσἰ τήν 45}. 
“4 
jedan tote’ 


«is 


jolein™ 
simi sists) 


athete! 


aint 
aiejetetotet 
+“ ajeiaretet 
oe etsdote(eieieiet 
ΜΌΝ 
ΑΝ 
γνΎΥΡΥΤ ον 
ejatoiatele! 
cha aieiet etm r 
«ἰ“ἰ- atei*(~ - 
ἀπ τυ ΤΩΣ 
(ore hore 


its 


“| 
ἀφ“. 
jot 


jain mites a'r 


« 


i 
wt? 


<inietets 
vet epetetet 
cietel 

eisioly 


(ἐφ σι οὐ 
ἐπα δ) διαί, 
sented tet 


ε 
siet 
eietate(eirt 
A! “ 


jotele 
(epee 


whet 
wjetereiet ee 


oie) 
ΡΟ τῶν 


ἀν φ σι {49 


=~ 
ΩΣ 

ΜΡ 
jot 


jetet~ 


ἰὡ «ἐν 
eietr 


ΡΥ ἐὰν 
ΡΝ 


arerey 
“σ᾽. 
erent 


eieie 
{οἰ | 5 

sti cintaiet 
eieieleinte 

joteiei et 


ἀπ» sot 


μ-- 
ΜΎΡΟΥ. Ὁ] 


“ὦ 
Liss 


olel® 


enter 
ale eee 
erererPrt IU babpag ere 
qeieteteioteitics 
eintetetet 
jek 


o\el* 


γον 


te 
ribeye ΄ jotel 
et jaiarter ei eiele et 


eleleinie 
pele e 
jotobetet 


toleiot 


ἐν σι τι 
οὐσ ϑύσ σι 


al 


ajahoteretet 


ΜΗ 


hole 


“' ts 
jot 


ot 
obetwt 
otetet 


jeisteieiet 
ohetaiaio 


. 
Ariel 


ΜΗ 


«tot ᾿ 
jeieinieimimieietl 

(eretetet ᾿ 
ΩΝ 


το οἰ“ τἰφ δ δὶ Ι' 
ieieisinjaiaioteieieis! 


jotniaie(eiete! Vejsisietatsisi siete 
i 


dadohelateieie tel inhnim 
eiperpeereretr ty wietn' 


. atetetelelet™ 
anit el LT iatetelaints ἡ ἐπ}. σ' 
sot 


sl *- 
jon of icietel? 


apoio 
=f 


Che babe 
mio le 
ΡΣ ὃν 


δ οἰ οἰ σὲ τ 
μον 
{ ΤΑΣ ΣΝ 
cioiejeieieliel™ 

ὧι ole 
τ eleiele 
ΜΝ 

oietel sietete 
ΣΝ ole 
pleteroie( ele 


wi ctelol~ 


jale 


ΡΤ νῶν 
δή οἰ δ κί σίσὶ 


eietelaqete! 
ie 


joieietel® dole 
ΜΕ εν i? 


lateperatetoretetels 
ἀο σφι et rel 


“οἱ τ τ 
ἡγ 41 “ιφί σι σὺ 

clejeieiiel® 

οἰ οἰ σι σὲ 

ajaicieielt 

wt 
aheteiet 
siejeieieieiett 
alimiel@ 


ΡΝ 
ΣΟ Ων 


ἐσ τ σισὶ 
ΡΥ ον “«ἰφίσι 
διφίο τ «{π| 
ajaialeiete 


oie eiat 
jan τ Φἡ “ἐπί οἱ 


fojeieielaie 
eimieienet et 


ole! 
ἐδ pba μη par Π 


jereyetetoiot™ “ἰ- 
aieletiet Στὸν 


chat eter eteiet 
του δέ ἡ τὴς 
sjotepermiotetelets 
slatebetetrtetetets! 
(alco ΡΝ 
jqieteiatetetet 

ci cteiaiee 


aj<to\@ 


i) 
wictete 
: atm Lis 
toi eteted 


δἰ 
ΜΠ - thay} 4 


eettetette 


τ 1. 


t 
«ἐφ σ τεσ 
ἀπ σῦν! 


oie 
‘ejeisie reat el 
eqereqerel® 


ioe 

eteie! 

ἰδ ιν»: 
et 


sietateliehetet Tit 
- . ἐφι 
jaiebeisiel Soleteteitts 


jomtotet seistel 


ΣΝ 
σι σοι oiel* 


preve 


ΡΣ 
aint rie 
ont ated 
epereiel® 
ieleieiete 
abel 
ΠΡ 
: Hibiel 


ἐ- 
“ἰφἰοὐ 
ἐσ σεῖς 
abel 
pajapeietetel = 
apecetetel= 
ΜΗ iba 


orejeimet 
το ο οἰ τὶ τ 
- ΤΣ ΤΣ 
τε ηόμεὶ “.᾿ 
pnt 


betetet 
pyo more TP 


ΠΩ 


AUTHORITATIVE CHRISTIANITY. 


THE SIX SYNODS OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH, ITS ONLY UTTER- 
- ANCES: ‘“ THOSE SIX COUNCILS WHICH WERE AL- 
LOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALL MEN,”’ 


(SECOND PART OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HOMILY AGAINST PERIL OF 
IDOLATRY, WHICH IS APPROVED IN FTS ARTICLE XXXvV), 


THE THIRD WORLD COUNCIL: 


THAT IS, THE THIRD COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE 
CHRISTIAN WORLD, EAST AND WEST, 
WHICH WAS HELD A. D. 431 AT 


EPHESUS IN ASIA... 


ἢν 2.55 πε εν ee 


WHICH CONTAINS ΑἸ COR AC Tuk: 
—TRANSLATED BY— 


JAMES CEHRYSTAL, M. A. 


This Act embraces the condemnation of Nestorius the heresiarch for his 
denial of the Incarnation, and for what St. Cyril calls his worship of a man, 
(᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία), and for what he terms his Cannibalism ( ἀνθρωποφαγία) on the 
Eucharist, and for his other errors therein specified. 


ee. os a ΘΈΤΟ ag hE: ie eg ee pe ΕΞ ἜΞΕΞΕΞΙΕ ΟΣ 
255 Grove Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, U. 5. A. 


1895. 


Sold to Subscribers at $3 a Volume; to others at $4. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1894, by 
JAMES CHRYSTAL, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, 
at Washington, D. C. 


Right of translation reserved. 


ire Oerrey, 


DEDICATION. 
THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED TO THE 


ΟΕ ΑΝ ΡΟ Wi Too TAS Mey oii ie 
—AND TO— 


TE, GBR NEC ACN, 32 ΘΕ ae. 


THOSE WHO OBEY THE SIX SYNODS OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 
AND MAINTAIN THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE TRUTHS 
THAT GOD THE WORD REALLY BECAME INCAR- 

NATE, THAT WE MAY WORSHIP NO 
CREATURE, BUT GOD ALONE, 

(NMEA SV, TO): 

AND THAT WE MUST REJECT ALL TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND 
ALL CONSUBSTANTIATION, AND ALL OTHER ERRORS WHICH 
RESULT IN WHAT ST. CYRIL BRANDS AS CANNIBALISM 
(AvOpwxogayta), HAVE MUCH TO BE GRATEFUL FOR TO 
GOD THAT HE RAISED UP THE NOBLE HOUSE 
WHICH CHAMPIONED THESE DOCTRINES AND 
ADHERED TO THEM IN EVERY STRUGGLE 
AGAINST HEAVY ODDS, WHOM FOR THAT 
FAITHFULNESS GOD HAS MADE 
GREAT AND IMPERIAL AND 
HEAD OF GERMANY. 

And the God-alone-Worshippers have had cause to be thankful to 
God that he called the Teutonic race to contend for those 
truths by pen and tongue and sword,and that so many 
millions of them heard and obeyed, and have 
been blessed and made strong therefor. 

May both Emperor and people be 
faithful now and ever, and 
So met endless 


blessings. 


.--- ὡώΞΞ“Ξ-- 0. 


ooo 


Ao, (DAW PRINtER, 
JERSEY «cll, Nod, 


ARR 


—26—— * 


PREFACE. 


I here present to the reader the first volume of the Acts of the 
Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in Asia, A. D. 431. It 
comprises all of Act I., which makes up about one-half of the whole 
bulk of the Minutes. It is now translated for the first time into 
English, or indeed into any modern language. It follows the 
original Greek, which happily is still preserved to us. On certain 
points the Old Latin translation which is ascribed to the century in 
which the Synod was held has been of service. 


Perhaps no Council has been so much misrepresented and so 
little understood; and the same remark applies to St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria, its great leader under God. To take but one example: the 
Synod to guard the doctrine of the Inflesh of God the Word, and 
against Man-Worship, used Bringer-forth-of-God of the Virgin. But 
how often have I seen it stated in the pages of some ignorant, or at 
best half-read Romish controversialist that the Third Ecumenical 
Synod called the Virgin Mary Mother of God, whereas Nestorius 
would not use that expression. And the general idea was conveyed 
that the Council was favorable to the Worship of the Virgin and 
Nestorius was not, and that to promote her worship was the chief 
‘business of the Synod. And some ignorant Protestants have ac- 
cepted such misrepresentions as true and condemned the Synod and 
Cyril on the basis of them; whereas, as we shall see, the Council, 
and Cyril its leader, in their abhorrence of the sin of Creature-Wor- 
ship went further than Luther, than Calvin, than Cranmer, than 
Ridley, than Latimer. For the Synod deposes every cleric, and 
anathematizes every laic, who gives even bowing, or prayer, and by 
necessary implication any other act of religious service to the perfect 
humanity of Christ, the highest of all mere creatures; and of course 
by necessary implication, much more (a fortiori) does it depose every 
cleric and anathematize every laic who worships any creature less 
than that perfect Man, be it the Virgin Mary, any Apostle, or 
Prophet, any martyr, any archangel, any angel, or any other crea- 
ture whomsoever, and much more any inanimate thing, be it a cross 


il Preface. 


painted, or graven, animage painted, or graven, relics, acommunion 
table, an altar, the Bible, or any part of it, or any other inanimate 
thing whatsoever. In notes 156,160, 173, and especially in notes. 
183, 582, 677, 679, and 680, I have shown how thoroughly both 
Cyril and the Third Synod and the Fifth condemned and anathema- 
tized the Nestorian co-worship of the Man taken with God the Word 
who took him. See especially Cyril’s Anathema VIII., approved 
by Ephesus, and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and 
its Definition, and compare the penalties in the first VII. Canons of 
Ephesus against Bishops and other clerics and laics who contravene 
its teachings and enactments, and the penalties in the Definition 
of the Fifth-World Synod against all Bishops, other clerics, and 
laics who oppose its teachings. Indeed Cyril goes so far as to teach 
that 


‘Tam DUTY OF. BEING BOWED TO BELONGS ONLY ΤῸ THE 
DIVINE AND INEFFABLE NATURE,’’ (pages 79 and 80 below, note). 


And again he writes: 


“Tse RIGHT TO BE BOWED TO BELONGS TO AND BEFITS 
Gop ALONE,”’ (pages 225, 226 below). 


And he brands the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity as 
᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that is, as Man-Worship, that is, as the worship of a 
human being. And surely if it be the sin of J/an- Worship to wor- 
ship Christ’s.mere separate humanity, much more is it the sin of 
worshipping a human being to worship any lesser creature, be it the 
Virgin Mary, an Apostle, ora Prophet. or a martyr, or any other 
creature whomsoever. For the ever sinless humanity of Christ is” 
higher than any other creature whomsoever. 


Yet how few know these facts well, or appeal in the controversy 
with idolatrous Rome to the Decisions of the Third Council of that 
whole Church, West and East, which Christ commands us to hear 
if we would not be to all His flock ‘‘as a heathen man and a publi- 
can,’’ (Matt. xviii., 17); and which, under the leading of the Holy 
Ghost condemned every form of creature invocation, image-worship, 
and all other creature worship, more than a thousand years before 
Luther or Cranmer were born; and the condemnation of those 
heresies by the whole Church in that Synod is more full, more 
thorough, and more exact than Luther’s or Cranmer’s. 


And long centuries before the rise of Two Nature Transubstan- 


Preface. 111 


ne ——— es ee 


tiation and Two-Nature Consubstantiation, and their sequences of 
the real presence of the Two-Natures of Christ in the Thanksgiving, 
that is, the Eucharist ( ὐχαριστία), and of their worship there, the 
Holy Ghost in the Third Council of the Undivided Church at Ephe- 
sus, A. D. 431, infallibly led the Universal Episcopate, to antece- 
dently condemn them. Nestorius had advocated the error of a one- 
nature Consubstantiation, that is, a Consubstantiation of the sub- 
stance of Christ’s real humanity with the still unchanged bread and 
wine, and their real eating in the rite, and his partisan and chief 
champion, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, had gone so far as to assert 
the worship of the consecrated and yet unchanged elements as being 
those things, the body and blood of Christ, which they represent and 
of which they are types. And his language implies that as denial 
of the Incarnation and Man-Worship, that is, the worship of Christ’s 
separate humanity, had, as we know, entered the Syrian Church in 
the fourth century and become established there by his time, so 
probably in the fourth century there had entered into it the heresy 
of a Consubstantiation of Christ’s humanity, not His Divinity, with. 
the bread and wine in the Rite, and the worship of the bread and 
wine as being not only bread and wine and types of Christ’s body 
and blood, but also His real body itself and His real biood itself, 
both which, according to him, are really and orally taken by the 
communicant in the Sacred Rite. Cyril meets this plain assertion 
of a real presence and a corporal manducation and condemns it as 
‘AvOpwrogayta, to use his own term for it, that is, CANNIBALISM, and 
asserts with Nestorius a veal absence of the Substance of God the 
Word’s Divinity from the rite; and, against him, a veal absence of 
the substance of Christ’s humanity from the rite; and of course, 
against him, he denies, as he was logically forced to do, any worship 
of Christ’s separate humanity there or anywhere else, and any and 
all eating of the substance of his flesh, and any and all drinking of 
the substance of His blood there, and uses strong language, stronger 
than is found to-day in most Anglican writers against that disgust- 
ing and absurd tenet and heresy. 


In note 606, and in those on Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18, pages 
472-475 below, I have shown how St. Cyril, and the Universal 
Church in the Third World-Synod, following him, have condemned 
all Eucharistic heresies past and present. Surely when these facts 
become known the creature worship of Rome and that of the Greeks, 


iv. Preface. 


and that of the Monophysites, and that of the Nestorians, and all - 
their real presence and Cannibal errors on the Eucharist and all 
their worship of it will be seen by all fair men to be anathematized 
by that ‘‘One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church,’’ which is, ‘‘the, 
pillar and ground of the truth’’ (1. Tim. 111., 15), which Christ, our 
Master, commands us to ‘‘hear,’’ or else to be regarded as not 
Christians but ‘‘asa heathen man and a publican,’’ (Matt. xvili., 17). 
And we shall all see also that the deposition by the Third World- 
Synod of all Bishops and all other clerics who hold to those errors or 
to any of them should be respected and enforced by the removal of 
all such heretics from their sees, and that its anathema against all 
laics who hold to such errors should also be obeyed, and no man 
should commune with them or fellowship them in any way as Chris- 
tians till they repent, reform, and submit to the Six Councils of the 
whole Church, West and East. These and all other questions decided 
by the Third Ecumenical Synod, or by any other of the Six World- 
Councils have passed out of the category of disputable questions and 
must be accepted and enforced by all, or the present ecclesiastical di- 
visions and anarchy must forever continue, contrary to Christ’s prayer 
in John xvii., 20-24, to His grief and the grief of every true Christian, 
and to the delight of His foes and theloss of souls. Hence we must 
reject all Synods which contradict any of its decisions against invoking 
and otherwise worshipping creatures, and against all image worship 
and relic worship, be it the Christ insulting and blasphemous conven- 
ticle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, under Tarasius of the God cursed death, 
Trent, or any other. And we must firmly hold to every thing inthe 
Six Councils which has had Kcumenical Sanction, and look forward 
to afast coming Seventh. May these translations and annotations en- 
lighten all who claim to be Christians and help powerfully to pre- 
pare the way for it. Ifthe writer in his dying hour can see things 
moving on towards it and towards a godly union and towards the 
reign of Christ on this earth, he will deem that he has not lived 
and labored in vain, and will be comforted and strengthened at his 
departure, to what he humbly hopes and believes will be by God’s 
unmerited favor, not by his own deservings, a blessed home with 
Christ for Whom he has toiled for so many years supported and 
guided by His grace and mercy. . 


INTRODUCTION. 


The following are the all important facts as to the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod: 


I. ASTO ITS AUTHORITY AND RECEPTION: 


It is one of ‘‘ THOSE SIx COUNCILS WHICH WERE ALLOWED 
AND RECEIVED OF ALL MEN,”’ to use the language of the Second 
Part of the Church of England's Homily against Peril of Idolatry: 
That Homily is among those approved in its Thirty-Fifth Article 
as containing ‘‘a godly and wholesome dotirine and necessary for these 
times,’ and therefore is ordered by that Article ‘‘zo be read in 
Churches by the ministers, diligently and distinéily, that they may be 
understandcad of the people.’’ ‘This language of a doctrinal formulary 
tells how highly that Communion respects the authority of the Third 
of those Six Synods. 

Those Six Councils are as follows: 

i Miedea, AW Dy 325. 

Il. First Constantinople, A.D. 381. 
11. Ephesus, Ἀν 251: 
το οι halcedon,. A. 7} 1 ΞΥ; 

V. Second Constantinople, A. D. 553. 
VI. Third Constantinople, A. D. 680. 


These are the only Synods of the Universal Church before it 
split into two parts in the ninth century; and therefore are THE 
ONLY AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS OF ALL CHRISTENDOM: and among 
all the later disputes and divisions, the great bulk of the theological 
scholarship of the Christian World still regards them as NEXT IN 
AUTHORITY TO THE BIBLE ITSELF, and looks upon their deczszons as 
guided by the Holy Ghost according to the promises of Christ to the 
Universal Apostolate which defined in them. 


Indeed the formularies of the following Communions expressly 
profess at least to receive this Third Synod, namely those, 


1, of the Greek; 
2, of the Latin; 
3, of the Anglican; 


vi. Introduction. 


And 4, even those of the Monophysite sects, that is the Copts, 
the Syrians, and the Armenians. 


5. Besides the formularies of the bulk of the Trinitarian Prot- 
estants, who are not Anglicans, such as the Lutherans, Presbyter- 
ians, etc., profess to agree with Ephesus on the Incarnation. 


The Synod is formally rejected by the Nestorians alone among 
the older heretical communions; and they are not one eight hun- 
dredth part of the professedly Christian world. 


Among later denominations it is rejected by the Anti-Trinitarian 
sects; a very small proportion of all who claim to be Christians. 


It is not too much to say that of perhaps 450,000,000 nominal 
Christians, the aggregate of sects who formally profess to reject the 
Third Synod and its doctrines does not amount to 10,000,000, not 
more than about one forty-fifth of the whole! 


As to reception then we see that no other Christian documents 
are so universally received among those who claim to be Christians, 
as the Six Councils are, except the Bible. So widely are they ac- 
mitted. 


Moreover, no person who claims to reject this Third Synod could 
get communion in any of the older organizations of professing 
Christendom, except among the mere handful of Nestorians, whose 
communion is rejected by all. It is true indeed that there is much 
ignorance as to what their decisions are, but nevertheless little of 
professed rejection of them. 


It is true indeed that in times posterior to the Third Ecumenical 
Synod the very points settled in it were lost sight of among the un- 
critical mass and that in the middle ages and in modern times even, 
in the creature-invoking Communions, it was supposed that the 
Council had even sanctioned the worship of the Virgin. Indeed that 
utterly false and absurd notion still exists among some of the less 
learned of the Roman Communion and of the Greek, and I presume 
among the Nestorians and the Monophysites also. 


As time wore on another evil came in; that is the use, especially 
in Western Christendom, of the expression ‘‘ Mother of God”’ of the 
Virgin instead of the expression ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God,”’ θεοτόχος 
in Greek which the older Latins had rendered exactly and excel- 
lently by Deipara, which means Bringer Forth of God. This was the 


Lntroduction. Vil 


more to be regretted, 1, because the expression Mother of C God is un- 
authorized by the Third Ecumenical Council and, so far as I know, 
by any other of the Six. 


2. Because it does not guard the doctrine of the actual Incar- 
carnation of the Eternal Substance of God the Word in the womb of 
the Virgin and His birth out of her, so well as ‘Bringer Forth of 
God’’ does, for children call a step-mother, mother; and so a son-in- 
law often calls his mother-in-law, ‘‘ mother;’’ yet the woman ad- 
dressed is in neither case the bringer forth of those who so call her 
‘* mother.”’ 


Furthermore, 3, the expression ‘‘ Mother of God’’ in the minds 
of the unlearned mass came finally to be connected with the worship 
of the Virgin, and it became customary for them to suppose that she 
could as a mother command her son, and so she was made in their 
depraved system a Mediatrix with Him, and was invoked to ‘‘com- 
mand’’ Him to do what the petitioner wished. And the facts that 
the Third Synod had not used ‘‘ Mother of God’’ at all, had not in- 
voked or worshipped her at all, but on the contrary had by neces- 
sary implication condemned all creature-worship by anathematizing 
even ‘‘ bowing’’ to the separate humanity of Christ, and had author- 
ized ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God’’ only to guard the Incarnation of God 
the Word, and to guard against Man-Worship, were generally lost 
sight of, indeed almost wholly. 


This was the state of things at the time of the Reformation in 
the sixteenth century. Hence while the better informed of the Re- 
formers spoke with respect of Ephesus, and while the second part of 
the Homily of the Church of England against Peril of Idolatry | 
quotes Cyrilas ‘‘ az old and holy doétor’’ against creature service, 
nevertheless some in their ignorance of the Third Synod, then un- 
published, supposing that the Romish representations of it as favor- 
ing the worship of Mary were true, used wrong language of the 
Council. 


In note 21, page 360 of Vol. I of Murdock’s Mosheim’s Ecclesias- 
tical History we read that Luther was the first among moderns to 
condemn Cyril of Alexandria, and that he ‘‘znveighed bitterly’? 
against him, ‘and that ‘‘ he was followed by innumerable others’’ of 
whom that note specifies quite a number. 


But now that the Synod has been published, we can readily 


Vill: I[ntroduction. 


correct the mistakes of the Romanists on the one hand, and of 
Luther on the other, and show from the Acts that the Synod in effect 
anathematized every creature worshipper in the Eighth of the XII. 
Chapters of Cyril, which it approved. And to show this from the 
Council itself is all important if we would have Church Authority 
duly respected, a thing necessary among the anarchies and heresies 
of the present. For the great argument of the opponents of Ephe- 
sus among the Protestants is that it favored creature-worship, an as- 
sertion, one of the most slandereus ever uttered by mortal man. It 
did just the opposite. Yet it is still done injustice to by those who 
should be its friends. And, alas! not two Bishops of any communion 
know it thoroughly, and the ignorance of it among the lower 
clergy is simply tearful and appalling. And yet the Orthodox 
Clergy are all bound to teach and to maintain these Holy-Ghost-led 
Creeds, Definitions, and Canons. For on them the soundness, the 
true order, the true unity, and the safety of the whole Church rests. 
Even under the Mosaic Dispensation, God said, ‘‘ The priest's lips 
should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for 
he ts the messenger of the Lord of Hosts,’’ (Malachi ii., 7). If this 
was so of the duty of the priest to the limited and inferior knowledge 
of the Mosaic Law, how much more is it the duty of God’s priests 
(I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. 1., 6), under the zew and better covenant 
of Christ (Heb. xii., 24; viii., 6, 8, 13), to guard for the Christian 
people the fuller and more spiritual and higher knowledge of two 
things which are joined together in Christ’s Law, and which ought 
never to be put asunder (Matt. xix., 6), that is the sword of the 
Spirit, which ts the word of God’’ (Eph. vi., 17), and the Decisions 
ofthat Universal Church which Christ has commanded us to hear un- 
less we would be regarded ‘‘ as aheathen man and a publican’’ (Matt. 
Xvill., 17). The true minister of God, therefore, be he Bishop, or 
Presbyter, or Deacon, will always join together God’s Word and 
God’s Church’s Utterances in its Synodically sound, undivided 
period when in ages of controversy, there rose different forms of in- 
fidelity on some themes, and that Holy-Ghost-led Church anathe- 
matized them, as for instance, Arius’, on Christ’s Divinity and Nes- 
torius’ on His Incarnation, as the Universal Church anathematized 
also others against the fundamental truth that God alone is to be 
worshipped (Matt. iv., 10), such as Arius’ in favor of worshipping 
a created Son, Macedonius’ in favor of worshipping a mere created 


Introduction. re. 
Holy Ghost, and Nestorius’ against worshipping a mere created 
human Christ, and as that same Universal Church anathematized 
Nestorius’ and his disciple Theodoret’s heresy of Cannibalism and 
Man-Worship in the Thanksgiving, that is, in the Eucharist. And 
he will not only join together the Bible and the utterances of the 
Universal Church in name but in fact and in execution, and there- 
fore as the Universal Church deposes all Bishops and other clerics 
who receive any of those heresies, or any other errors condemned 
by the VI. Synods, he will do all he can to depose them and will shun 
them; and as it anathematizes all laics who receive any of those errors, 
or any others condemned by any of the VI. Ecumenical Coun- 
cils, he will also anathematize them and, as the Holy Ghost warns, 
will ‘‘ avoid them’? (Rom. xvi., 17; I. Cor. v., 11; and II. Thess. iii., 
14,15). And he will regard as disobedient to the Universal Church 
all who try to make out that its Holy-Ghost-led World Synods were 
wrong in condemning as heretics Nestorius, Origen, Pope Hon- 
orius or any others. For that sort of talk endsin anarchy. For if 
any one assert that the Holy-Ghost-led Undivided Church went 
wrong in an Ecumenical Synod, when it especially needs the Spirit’s 
guidance and has it, and condemned Honorius of Rome, for instance, 
or Nestorius, unjustly, then all the surety of the decisions of the Six 
Hcumenical Synods is swept away, for another may assert as some 
do even now that Nicaea wrongly condemned Arius, and I. Con- 
stantinople Macedonius, and Chalcedon Eutyches, and II. Constan- 
tinople the Three Chapters, and so we shall all be at sea, and 
Christ’s promises to be with his church to the end of the world, and 
by His Spirit to guide His Apostolate, that is, Episcopate, into all 
truth will be nullified and falsified. 


God, by His prophet Isaiah, ascribes the woes of his people to 
lack of knowledge: ‘‘ Therefore my people are gone into captivity, be- 
cause they have no knowledge’’ (Isaiah v., 13). And, again he writes, 
‘« The priest and the prophet have erred’? (Isaiah xxviii., 7). And 
on the other hand when rebuking his people Israel for their spiritual 
whoredom of idolatry and invoking creatures, for which they had 
been carried away captives to Assyria, he promises them teachers 
who will feed them with knowledge if they will reform; ‘! Zurn, O 
backsliding children, saith the Lord ; for lam married unto you, and I 
will take you one ofa city, and two of afamily, and Iwill bring you to 


x: [ntroduction. 


Zion: and [will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall 
Jeed you with knowledge and understanding,’’ (Jerem. iii., 14, 15). 


But in the middle ages evil Empresses and Emperors, and “‘ ¢he 
great whore that sitteth on many waters,’’ Rome (Rev. xvii., 1, 15 and 
18), corrupted ‘‘a/l nations,’’ for they drank ‘‘of the wine of the 
wrath of her fornication’’ of creature worship, “ and the Kings of the 
earth committed fornication with her (Rev. xviii., 3), and ignorance of 
the decisions of the Six Councils spread like blackness and prevailed, 
and the accursed conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, enacted dogmas 
in favor of invoking saints and worshipping images and relics ve/a- 
tively after the heathen sophism and attempted excuse of relative 
adoration, and soul-damning idolatry, like a nightmare, rested on 
the bosom of the Church, and God, as the blessed English Reformers 
teach, sent the Mohammedan curse on it for those sins, which wasted 
it, and, as the idolatrous Christians would not repent, wiped out 
immense parts of it, and controls the East to this day, and holds 
fast the great bulk of the people of the Barbary States to this hour. 
And the present corruption and decadence of the Church of England 
is owing to the fact that neither Bishops, nor lower clergy, nor 
people knew the Six Synods accurately, had no zeal for them, and 
permitted Pusey, Keble and others to teach against their doctrines. 
And because the professedly Christian world does not know them, 
and violates them, therefore is so much of it creature invoking, 
image worshipping, and Host-worshipping, and therefore are some 
other parts of it opposed to its doctrine, discipline, rite, and custom, 
as set forth in said Six Synods, and therefore have we so many 
heresies, divisions, and sects. The way to restore wnzty zn truth, 
(and God will never permit any other union), is to fall back on the 
Scripture, as authoritatively set forth in the Six Ecumenical Coun- 
cils, and to follow all primitive do¢trine, discipline, rite, and custom, 
where they have not spoken. ‘There was unity onallthatonce. Be- 
fore a hundred years there will be again. Meanwhile we must 
maintain it all and sternly refuse all compromises. 

We must then never forget that these Six Synods were the sole 
Conciliar bond and basis of unity in the Church till it fell apart by 
the attempt to add to the faith of the Church what contravened them 
in the local Synod in A. D. 787 at Nicaea, under Tarasius of the 
horrible death, and Irene, the Jezebel of her age. All the attempts 
to reunite the Greeks and Latins and Protestants, on bases which 


Introduction. ΧΙ. 


contradict any thing in the VI. Synods have been signal failures. 
Any future union must necessarily begin by receiving them and re- 
jecting all that contradicts them. ‘This is the faith of all Orthodox 
scholars of every name. 

While there was unity, Bishops at their ordination and Emper- 
ors at their coronation promised to obey and maintain them. 

They were of Universal Authority twelve hundred years ago; 
and so they are to-day, and so they will be while the world shall 
stand and the Church be militant. 

II. As TO THIS TRANSLATION OF THE THIRD COUNCIL. 

Not one-twentieth part of its Acts has ever been put in 
an English dress. Hammond in his work oz the Canons, (again and 
again republished), has given us only its canons and some excerpts 
besides; not a fiftieth part of the bulk of the whole work. 

P. HK. Pusey has given us in pamphlet form, a version of the 
two Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria approved init. But the bulk of 
the Synod has never been Englished. Itstill exists, but only in the 
original Greek and in an old Latin translation. The Third Synod 
is the first of the Six whose Acts, that is, Minutes, have reached us. 
We have only the decisions and formal utterances of the first two. 

The failure to English it is the more remarkable as our own day 
has witnessed the translation and wide circulation of works of ad- 
mittedly vastly less importance and authority, that is, the mere 
opinions of individual writers, in the Oxford Library of the Fathers — 
and in Clark’s Ante-Nicene Christian Library. ‘There is as much 
difference between them and the Six Synods, sofar as azthority is 
concerned, as there is between the mere ¢Zestzmony or opinions of private 
individuals as to what a law of the United States should be, and that 
law itself enacted by the Congress of the United States and every- 
where enforced. In the one case the utterance or testimony is zzd7- 
vidual, in the other it is the sound and irrevocable verdict of the whole 
Christian Church after the evidence pro and con., has been presented. 
These Synods did indeed profess to follow that written transmission 
in doctrine, discipline and rite which had come down from the be- 
ginning; but they expose and brand all wanderings from it in times 
after the beginning in individual writers, as for instance in Theodoret, 
and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus, as heretical and 
to be avoided; so that they most savingly teach us where the stream of 
ancient truth is pure, and where men have tried to mingle the poison 


xi. Introduction. 

of error and heresy with its clean waters. An instance of the need 
and value of these Ecumenical Decisions in such matters is seen in 
the fact that Ephesus condemned the error of Theodoret on the 
Eucharist; which John Keble, not knowing, made Theodoret’s con- 
demned heresy the basis of his own errors on that sacred rite. And 
the heresiarch and idolatrizer, EK. B. Pusey, being ignorant of parts 
of the Decisions of the Council feli into the same heresy. 


Years ago, asfar back as 1864, the translator began his work 
of turning these inestimably precious tomes into his mother tongue, 
and has proceeded according as he had time and opportunity 
till he has finished all of the Third Council and much of the other 
Five. He has been often hampered by the fact that his parish or 
teaching duties required his presence, and that at times he did not 
live near enough to the large libraries to consult their treasures. 
He has toiled on without the aid of the fellowships which at Oxford 
and Cambridge have enabled clerical scholars to devote themselves. 
wholly to the work of sacred learning and have furnished them the 
means of acquiring information in their large libraries and of pub- 
lishing their works when written. Yet he has persevered and after 
many interruptions has been enabled, by God’s undeserved mercy, 
᾿ to finish his task on Ephesus, and not only to translate that, but 
also large passages from ancient writers which serve to explain it. 
His aim has been to make it what long years agoa most learned 
American prelate, Bp. Whittingham, exhorted and encouraged him 
to make it, a χτῆμα ἐς ἀεί, ‘‘a possession forever,’ arn exhortation 
which it was the more easy to fulfil because, as being the voice of that 
whole Church which Christ commands us to hear, it was that by 
very necessity already ; so that all the translator had to do was to 
make it known to the English-speaking reader in his own noble 
Saxon speech. 

To translate it had become the more necessary (A.), because of 
the mistaken and sometimes even absurd notions which were circu- 
lated regarding some of its Decisions, and the total ignorance of 
others of them among the masses of the clergy of all Creeds ; aye, 
even now some of the godly decisions of the Whole Church in it are 
practically as much forgotten as was the book of the Law when Hil- 
kiah the high priest found it in the temple and brought it to the 
notice of the pious reforming King Josiah (II Kings, chapters xxii. 
And xxii): 


L[ntroduction. ΧΙ. 


(B). Because so few of the clergy were ever good scholars in 
Christian Greek and Latin; and because most of the few who were 
skilled in those tongues have largely lost thelr knowiedge amidst 
daily cares and struggles for a livelihood; so that even if they now 
became possessed of the original Greek, they could not readily read 
it, nor readily find time to do as much study as they wish. 


(C). Because of the cost and rarity of the works which con- 
tain the original of the Six Councils. ‘Their cost on this side of the 
water may be inferred from what a New York book dealer told me 
within a few years. He stated that he had sold a set of Mansi’s 
Concilia for twelve hundred dollars or more, and Hardouin’s for about 
two hundred or two hundred and fifty. In Mansi there are thirty- 
one volumes, in Hardouin twelve. One may readily see therefore 
how hard it is in a land like our own, where there is so little of prac- 
tical appreciation and advancement of learned men, for a poor scholar 
in some out of the way and poor charge to get the means for such 
an outlay. For as nothing pays among us where the unthinking 
multitude are the choosers, except mere popular oratory, which is 
seldom combined with learning and solidity, the consequence gener- 
ally is that the scholars are compelled to live on small and insuffi- 
cient incomes in places remote from the daily privileges of libraries, 


III. FURTHERMORE AS TO THE FORM IN WHICH THIS WORE 
IS PUBLISHED. 


The aim has been to get it up in a more scholarly and _ perfect 
way than some translations of other documents; for on points of in- 
terest we have given the original Greek or Latin in the notes. This, 
while vastly enhancing the value of the work to the scholarly class 
who will be its chief purchasers, will necessarily entail a higher 
price for it; but it is believed that very few will begrudge the increase 
in cost, or be willing to purchase an inferior presentment of the 
originals. If aman wants this work at all, he wants it next to his 
Bible, and wants it in the best and completest form. 


It is a book to be used for a life time, and to be constantly ap- 


pealed to for information, and in such cases the best is always the 
cheapest in the long run. 


IV. I use as THE BASIS, FROM WHICH TO TRANSLATE, Coleti’s - 
Greek, compared with that in the Collectio Regia or Editio Regia 
of Paris, A.D. 1644, and that in Hardouin and that in Mansi. 


κῖν. Introduction. 


Sometimes I have found the Collectio Regia or Editio Regia very 
useful in enabling me to correct 8. misprint in Coleti; and I have 
found Hardouin critical and useful. Mansi often incorporates into 
his edition of the Councils the remarks of Hardouin. 


Mansi mentions two Latin Versions of these Acts, that is, the 
old one, and the new one of the Jesuit, Pelte. He gives both (@). 


I had hoped to give in this volume the Greek text of the two 
Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria which were approved in the first Act 
of the Third Ecumenical Synod, as well as the Greek of the Twenty 
Blasphemous Passages of Nestorius, so far as found, which were 
condemned in the same Act, as well perhaps as the sentence on him 
atitsend. But those things must be deferred to a final volume of 
Ephesus, or at least to farther on in another volume of this Council. 
For this volume is large already: and the Greek of those documents 
with the notes on them, would increase its size and cost more than 
the buyer might care to give. 


(2). Mansi, Concilia, tome 4, col. 1123, 1124, writing of the Latin Version 
given by him of the Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod says: 

“Versio est Theodori Peltani Soc. Jesu allata etiam ab Harduino, qui Graeci 
textus margini nonnullas apposuit varias leCtiones e Cod. Reg. 524, propriasque 
conjecturas; Latini vero, quasdam voces notata dignas e vetere versione, ac no- 


tulas. Haec omnia (licet integram veterem versionem daturi simus ex Baluzio), 
huc transtulimus, ac utrique textui substravimus,”’ 


RISE AND SPREAD 


——Or Ea —— 


NESTORIAN HERESIES, 


ON THE INMAN, ON THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST’S HUMANITY, ON 
THE EUCHARIST, AND ON THE KINDRED THEMES ΕΠ 
AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY ON THEM 
WHICH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE THIRD 
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND LED TOIT. 


The story of all this is briefly told. Diodore, who was a pres- 
byter of Antioch, and about A. D. 379, Bishop of Tarsus, laid the. 
foundations of the Nestorian heresy (a). He had struggled man- 
fully against the Arian heresy, and the Manichean, and the Apolli- 
narian, and had won deserved renown therefor, and, so, had been 
elevated to the See of the Metropolis of the First Cilicia, and as such 
had sat in the Second Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 381. On the 
Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost he was sound. 
But the quotations from him which are preserved in the Fragments 
of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s 7veatise against him which have reached 
us incontestibly prove that he denied the Incarnation, and wor- 
shipped his mere human Christ, ve/atively to the Logos, and gave 
him the name So/e-Born, which is prerogative to God the Word, and 
asserted that that mere creature shares the Sonship and the Dignity 
which belong only to the Logos, and was made a ‘‘ Complement of 
the Holy Consubstantial Trinity”’ ‘These are chief Nestorian 
errors, and constitute their creature-worship and its basis: see those 
Fragments in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 320-337, especially pages 328-— 
335, and page 321, note, outer column, where Cyril speaks of him. 


(2), The article on Diodore, (‘‘ Diodorus I,’’), in Smith and Wace’s Dic- 
tionary of Christian Biography contains some references to the originals which 
are worth looking at, but is too favorable altogether to the heretic. St. Cyril 
of Alexandria, in his Ep. I. to Succensus, calls Nestorius a “" disciple” of Dio- 
dore, and tells us that he was ‘‘ darkened by Diodore’s books.’’ see the place 
translated in a note, on page 321 of the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alex 
andria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 


Xvi. Livents Before the Council. 


In those Fragments I find no mention of the Nestorian one-nature 
Consubstantiation on the Lord’s Supper. But that is no wonder, 
for only a small part of Diodore’s writings have reached us, and 
even of Cyril’s reply to him we have only Fragments. But even 
from the few remains of Diodore’s writings which we have it is clear 
that he held to and taught two out of the three great errors of what 
was afterwards termed Nestorianism, that is 


1, Denial of the [Incarnation ;, and 


2, The relative worship of Christ's separate humanity, that is of 
a mere creature, and that hence he was what St. Cyril termed Nes- 
torius, a Man- Worshipper (d0pwrxohdtpys), that is a Worshipper of a 
Man, and hence that he had slumped through into the fundamental 
error of paganism. 

On the 3d great error, the Nestorian Caxnzbalism (Av0pwrogayta, ) 
as St. Cyril terms it, on the Eucharist, I have seen nothing of Dio- 
dore which is definite either way, as I have just said. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom were Diodore’s 
pupils and disciples, and Nestorius, and Theodoret, Bishop of Cy- 
rus, were among his disciples and shared his errors (a). Indeed the 
influence of Diodore was very great in the Patriarchate of Antioch 
as we now term it, in which nearly his whole life seems to have 
been spent, for his family was of Antioch, and his see, Tarsus, was 
under it. On pages 112-128, note, I have shown that Diodore, 
Theodore, Nestorius, Theodoret, and Andrew Bishop of Samosata, 
all of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and Eutherius of Tyana, all held 
to what is termed the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity, and 
to his denial of the Inman; and in note 606, pages 240-313, and on 
page 472-474, text and notes on it, we see that Nestorius is de- 
nounced by Cyril for holding to what Cyril calls Cannibalism 
( AvOpwrogayta) on the Eucharist. And in note 606 we see that Theo- 
doret taught one-nature Consubstantiation in the Lord’s Supper, 
that is the co-existence of Christ’s humanity with the bread and 
wine of the Eucharist, that is His body with the bread and His blood 


(a). See note ‘‘a,’’ pages 320, 321, and note “" a,’ page 337 of the Oxford 
Translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius 
and in the note on pages 112-128 in this work above. Pusey in his heretical 
and idolatrous Doétrine of the Real Presence, page 544, states that Chrysostom 
““ studied under Diodorus (afterwards Bishop of Tarsus).” 


Events Before the Council. XViL. 


with the wine in the rite after consecration, and to their worship 
there. And his language seems naturally to imply that such wor- 
ship had been for some time established in Syria, his home, and the 
home of the One Natureite against whom he is writing: whether it 
was originated by Diodore or Theodore of Mopsuestia we cannot 
say, but as they were worshippers of Christ’s separate humanity, 
and also held to velative worship, they could with their creature- 
serving notions worship it in the Eucharist; whereas St. Cyril 
who agreed with Nestorius in denying the real presence of the 
Substance of God the Word’s Divinity in the Eucharist; and 
who differed from Nestorius by denying the real presence of the sub- 
stance of Christ’s humanity there, and also by rejecting the worship 
of Christ’s separate humanity there as Man- Worship ( ἀνθρωπολατρείαλ, 
and who confines all worship to God, in accordance with Matthew 
iv., 10, could not worship that creature anywhere (0). Compare 
notes 691, 692 and 693. 

It can not, indeed, be said that the Syrians had gone so far into 
creature worship as Rome and the Greeks have since. For whereas 
both the Greeks and the Latins now worship angels, the Syrian 
did not, even as late as Theodoret’s day in the fifth century; if his 
Opinion on it was shared by them. For, as Bingham in his Aztequz- 
ties, Book XIII., Chapter iii., se¢tion 3 shows, Canon XXXV. of © 
the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, brands that sin of in- 
voking angels as ‘‘ hidden zdolatry,’’ and anathematizes those who 
were guilty of it, as Theodoret himself as there quoted testifies, and 
he himself condemns it (¢), and, presumably, expresses the Syrian 
opinion on it. And Chrysostom before him had denounced that 
God-insulting and Christ-deriding sin, as though a creature could 
share the One Mediator’s office of mediation and intercession on 
high, or as though His intercession were not all-sufficient (Heb. 
Vii., 25), and alone authorized (John xiv., 6; I. Tim. ii., 5, and I. John 
li., I, 2). See the same section in Bingham. 


(6). See Cyril’s language above, in note 183, page 79 and pages 102-107, 
and in note 582, page 225. 

(c). Seeonthat Canon, and Theodoret’s language on it, in Bingham’s 
Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book xiii., Chapter iii.,Section 3. Theo- 
doret’s words are quoted in Greek and English on page 140 of Treat’s Catholic 
Faith. He isalso cited by Whitby on Colos. ii., 18. As the Canons of Lao- 
dicea were made of Ecumenical authority by Canon I. of Chalcedon it also is 
part of the faith of the Universal Church. 


Xviil. Events Before the Council. 


But we shall find further on, from one of:the Nestorian party, a 
confession of what seems much like the worship of relics. Few ofthe 
Syrians of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s day were deemed Orthodox. 
And, whatever was the cause, he refused to insert even Chrysostom’s 
name in the diptychs of his church (2), a position which some think 
he maintained to the last, and which implies a severe judgment on 
Chrysostom’s Orthodoxy, perhaps also on his salvability. And as 
some editions of Chrysostom have in places intercession of saints, we 


(2). Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch, A. Ὁ. 404-408, would not put Chry- 
sostom’s name into the diptychs. That was first done by his successor Alexan- 
der, consecrated in A. Ὁ. 408, and dead in 418 (Theodoret’s Eccl. Hist. v., 35). 
He tried to persuade Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 406-426, but he re- 
fused till he was, so to speak, forced by the people and the emperor. When he 
did he tried to induce Cyril of Alexandria to dothe same, but failed. I quote 
Venable’s account of this incident in his article on Atticus in Smith and Wace’s 
Diétionary of Christian Biography, vol. 1, page 209, inner column: 


‘The apology of Atticus, mean, insincere, cowardly, extenuating the im- 
sortance of his act, laying the responsibility of it on others-the people so 
violent—the emperor so urgent—lamenting that a sense of expediency should 
have compelled him to take a step his judgment disallowed, contrasts most 
forcibly with the incisive severity and bitter irony of Cyril’s reply, while with 
pitiless hand he disse¢ts Atticus’ excuses, and with withering scorn exposes 
their futility and dishonesty. ‘He would as soon be induced to place the name 
of Judas on the rolls as that of Chrysostom. Atticus must retrace his steps, and 
remove it at all hazard.’’’ Theodoret, as was natural, takes sides with his fel- 
low patriarchan, Chrysostom, (See his Eccl. Hist. v. 34). It shows his strong 
dislike of the Egyptians. In the chapters preceding he lauds Chrysostom to 
the skies. In the same book, Chapter 4o, he extravagantly praises the heresi- 
arch Theodore of Mopsuestia: I quote part of it as in the English translation 
in Bohn’s Ecclesiatical Library; Italics mine: 


‘During the time that the holy Theodotus governed the church of Antioch, 
Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, the teacher of all the churches ; and the oppo- 
nent of all the sects of heresy departed this life. He had been a disciple of the 
celebrated Diodorus, and the associate and fellow-labourer of John, bishop of 
Constantinople. During the space of thirty-six years he fulfilled the duties of 
the episcopal office, and zealously opposed the heresies of Arius, Eunomius, and 
Apollinaris; and he led his flock to excellent pasturage.”’ 


This is said of a heretic, whose errors St. Cyril of Alexandria, approved by 
the Third Ecumenical Synod, condemned : and whom the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council anathematized with his heresies, and their defenders, of whom Theo- 
doret was one, in its Anathemas XII., XIII. and XIV. Inasmuch as Theo- 
doret had such a high opinion of Theodore it was no wonder that he was led 
astray by him and became a champion for his heresies. 


" 


Events Before the Council. xix. 


can save his reputation for soundness, only by regarding them as 
interpolations, as some scholars do, and as may well be the case. 
On the whole subject of the creature-worship of the Nestorians see 
above, notes 183, 582, 679, 680 and 688. And so likewise on the 
Eucharist his language is sometimes so suspicious, especially when 
we remember that he was of Antioch, and had studied under the 
heretic Diodore of Tarsus (d), that we are compelled to remember 
his rhetorical and passionate style and his wont to use even stilted 
and extreme language as an orator or writer, before we can make it 
accord with the anti-real-presence doctrine of St. Cyril which was 
approved by the whole Church at Ephesus. Whereas, at Alexan- 
dria the doctrine and certain externals of the Lord’s Supper had 
been preserved with wondrous faithfulness and adherence to New 
Testament example, when they had been altered in most other 
p'aces. For some of the Egyptians still took the Eucharist after a 
full meal and at evening (6), as Christ and his apostles did at the 
first Eucharist (Luke xxii., 20). Andso Paul celebrated the rite at 
night at Troas on the first day of the week, and presumably after a 
full meal, for fasting was always forbidden on the Lord’s Day, the 
day of the joyful resurrection of our Redeemer and Surety (/). 
But Chrysostom, who was ordained Deacon at Antioch about A. D. 
380-1, and Presbyter there in A. D. 386, and who served there as 
such till A. D. 398, when he was made Bishop of Constantinople, 
protests that he had never given the communion to any one who had 
eaten just before it, and that he had never baptized just after eating 
(g), which means that on such an occasion he always received the 
communion fasting, for then Baptism and the Communion were given 


(d). Sozomen’s Zccl. Hist., Book VIII., Chapter 2; Socrates’ Ficcl. Lists 
Book VI., Chapter 3, and Theodoret’s Zccl. Hist., Book V., Chapter go. I 
have quoted the last mentioned place in the last note above. Pusey states the 
same fact on the basis, I presume, of the above references, on page 544 of his 
idolatrous, Anti-Cyrillian and Anti-Third Council Doétrine of the Real Pres- 
€11CE. 


(e), Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History, Book VII., Chapter 19; Socrates’ 
Ecclesiastical History, Book V., Chapter 22. 


(f). See Bingham’s Antiquities, Book XVI. Chapter viii., Section 3; 
Book XX., Chapter ii., SeCtion 5 ; and Book XIII., Chapter VIII., Section 3. 


(g). See Bingham’s Antig., Book XV., Chapter vii., section 8, where 
Chrysostom’s words are quoted. 


Ἐν: Events Before the Council. 


at the same service (4). And how pure the Alexandrian Church 
was on doétrine in Cyril’s day in contrast with the Syrian is told in 
note 606, pages 240-313, below, and especially pages 250-313, in 
his own words, and in those of his Syrian opponents, Nestorius and 
Theodoret, and on pages 472-474 below, text andnotes. The Alex- 
andrian Church as represented by St. Cyril was entirely free from 
all Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation views of every kind, 
and from the Consubstantiation sequence of worshipping the bread 
and wine as, according to Theodoret, containing not indeed Christ’s 
Divinity, but His real human flesh and .blood, which is therefore 
termed one nature Consubstantiation, and from the Transubstantiation 
sequence of worshipping the transubstantiated bread and wine, or 
wafer and wine, as actually whole Christ, body and blood, soul and 
Divinity. And, so far as appears, no one at that time held to Two 
Nature Consubstantiation, that is tothe Consubstantiation of Christ’s 
two Natures, the Divinity and the humanity, with the bread and 
wine. 

These wide divergences between Orthodox, God-alone wor- 
shipping Alexandria, and creature worshipping Antioch prepared 
the material for the conflict between God’s truth and man’s error, 
though the elevation of one of the Syrian School, Nestorius, to the 
throne of Constantinople transferred the scene thither. He was 
consecrated Bishop of that chief see of the East on April 10, 428. 
His episcopate was destined, through his own fault, to be very short. 
A presbyter, holding to the anti-incarnation heresy of Diodore of 
Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, was to start the controversy by 
denying the Inman in denying that the expression θεοτόχος, that is, 
Bringer Forth of God, may be used of the Virgin: for that expression 
guards and defends the truth that Christ is very God, and not a 
mere man, and so does away with Nestorius’ worship of His mere 
separate, created humanity. There was then no worship of the Vir- 
gin Mary. St. Epiphanius ascribes the Collyridian heresy, which 
first advocated it, to the devil (Epiph. oz Heresy 1,X XIX., Sect. 1). 

I will first quote the account of it given by one who was an ad- 


(h). Bingham’s Antig., Book XII., Chapter i., sections I, 2, 3, 4 and 5; 
and Book XV., Chapter iv., section 7, where, at the end, however, he is unwise 
and opposed to the primitive custom in arguing against the restoration of infant 
communion. He tells us there that “ Bishop Bedel and some others have de- 
clared entirely for it,’? which is vastly to their credit. 


Events Before the Council. 2.9 


vocate, and a native of Constantinople, and who was a resident of it 
when the controversy rose: but who is deemed by some to have 
been a Novatian, a charge which seems likely to be true. In his 
L£cclestastical History, Book VII., Chapter 32, he writes: 


‘There was with him [Nestorius] Anastasius, a presbyter, who 
had come with him from Antioch. He [Nestorius] held him 
in much honor, and made use of him as an adviser in his affairs. 
And once Anastasius while teaching in the Church said, ‘Let xo 
one call Mary Bringer-Forth-of-God (1). For Mary was a human 
being; and it ἐς impossible for God to be brought forth by a human be- 
mg.’ When that was heard it troubled many clerics and laics at 
the same time. For from of yore they had been taught to say that 
the Anointed One (7) is God, and by no means to separate him as 
Man in the Economy from His Divinity, for they were persuaded by 
the language of the Apostle which says, ‘ Yea, though we have known 
Anointed after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more (hk). 
And [again he writes], ‘Wherefore, leaving the doftrine on Anointec, 
letus go on unto the perfection’ (2). ‘Therefore, as I have said, 
trouble having arisen in the Church, Nestorius hastened to ratify 
the do@rine of Anastasius, for he was not willing that the man who 
had been honored by him should be convicted of being a blasphemer; 
and he taught continually before the Church on that matter, and, 
with too great love of strife, made the controversies regarding it, 
and everywhere rejected the expression Bringer-Forth-of-God (m). 
Wherefore the controversy on that was understood by some in one 
way and by others in another, and division arose in the Church; and, 
like men engaged in a night-battle some said one thing and others 
another, and at the same moment they assented and they denied. 
And among the most Nestorius had the reputation of asserting that 
the Lord is a mere man, and of bringing into the Church the doc- ἡ 
_trine of Paul of Samosata and of Photinus. Moreover, so great was 


(ἢ. Greek, ὁ ᾿Αναστάσιος διδάσκων ἔφη, Θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν καλείτο μηδείς. 

(7). Greek, τὸν Χριστόν 

(k). II Cor. v., 16. 

(J). Heb. vi., 1. Bright’s Greek text of Socrates has not here the Greek 


for ‘‘ the principles’’ of our Common Version. The omission may be due to a 
slip of Socrates’ memory or to the carelessness of a copier or a printer. 


(m). Greek, Θεοτόκος. 


old Events Before the Council. 


the controversy and trouble which arose on that, that even an Ecu- 
menical Synod became necessary ’’ (7). 


St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Five-Book Contradiétion of the 
Slasphemies of Nestorius, Book I., Chapter 6, shows what the Ortho- 
dox Champion, Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum, meant 
when he began in open church his opposition to a sermon of Nes- 
torius in defence of his heresy; he was not striving about the wor- 
ship of the Virgin Mary, nor was Nestorius, but was contending for 
the Incarnation, which Nestorius attacked, and he began to defend 
(2). Cyril after contending for the truth that God the Word by his 
eternal Substance took flesh in the womb of the Virgin, and put on 
aman there, and in that man was born out of her, and that it is 
right therefore to speak of her as Bringer-Forth-of-God (6) to guard 
the Incarnation and the verity of His Divinity, comes to give an 
account of how Nestorius struggled against that truth of the Inmayi, 
and that expression which guards it. I translate Cyril here: 


‘‘'The God-inspired Scripture therefore has witnessed that we 
have been wont to think aright when we affirm that God was 
brought forth in the flesh for the salvation of all. But forasmuch 
as the Symbol (¢) of the Church’s faith sets forth the truth against 
his (4) most novel dogmas, which Symbol the Fathers gathered 
aforetime in the city of the Nicaeans defined through the illumina- 
tion of the Spirit, he, fearing lest some educated in the truth by 
their utterances (6) might nevertheless in some way preserve 
through [everything] the sound faith, tries to slander [it], and he 


(z). I have translated the above from Bright’s Hussey’s Greek text of 
Socrates’ Hecl. Hist., Book VII., chapter 32. 

(a). On him see a note below. 

(ὁ). Greek, Θεοτόκος. 


(ὦ. Greek, τὸ Σύμβολον, that is the Creed. The particular Creed here 
meant is that of the First Ecumenical Synod which St. Cyril recites in full in 
his Longer Epistle above on pages 213 and 214. He explains the Orthodox 
sense of it against Nestorius in what follows there. It is recited in Act I. ofthe 
Council, pages 50, 51. Boththat, and the only other Ecumenical Creed, that of 
the Second World Council, were read in the Fourth Synod. 

(2d). Nestorius’. 

(e). That is, the utterances of the Nicene Fathers in that Creed. Perhaps 


he may mean also their utterances in their Synodal Epistle and in their XX, 
Canons. See them all in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. P. Εἰ. Pusey’s English 


Events Before the Council. Xxili. 


alters the reference of the words (/), and dares to falsify the very 


translation here has a bad blunder, for it brings in a sense directly contrary to 
the true. He renders the Greek, ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῖς νεωτάτοις αὐτοῦ δόγμασι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 
καὶ αὐτὸ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς πίστεως ἀντεξάγει τὸ σύμβολον, x. τ. A., as follows: ‘‘ but 
since to his most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very Symbol of the 
Church's faith,” etc. But that makes utter contradictory nonsense. For, as we 
see in Nestorius’ Epistle, pages 155-166 above, Nestorius did not oppose the truth 
to his most novel dogmas, but Cyril of Alexandria did that. Nor did Nestorius 
oppose ‘‘ the very Symbol of the Church’s faith to his..most novel dogmas.’ On 
the contrary, in his Epistle to Cyril on pages 155-166 above, he strives to make 
out that it agrees with “‘ zs most novel dogmas.” The true translation is that 
given in the text above, which agrees with all the facts, viz., ‘‘ But jovasmuch 
as the Symbol of the Church's faith sets forth the truth against his most novel 
dogmas.’ On page 166 above after the reading of Nestorius’ heretical Letter 
to Cyril, Cyril asks the Ecumenical Council, 


‘‘Does this seem to be in harmony with the Faith defined in the Holy 
Synod of the Holy Fathers assembled aforetime in the city of the Nicaeans. or 
not?’ 

And their answer in effect is, It does not, but the explanation of the Faith 
by Cyril does. See the responses of the prelates there. Indeed, just before, 
after the reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, he says to the Council 
regarding it : 

‘“This Holy and Great Synod have heard that which in advocating the 
right faith I have written to the most religious Nestorius. And I think that I 
am not convicted of straying in any respect from the right doctrine of the 
Faith, that is of transgressing the Symbol put forth by the Holy and Great 
Synod aforetime colleted in the city of the Nicaeans. And I implore your 
Holiness to say whether I have written such matters correctly and blamelessly 
and in harmony with that Holy Synod, or not.’’ 


Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: ‘‘The holy Faith put forth by the 
Synod in Nicaea being read [that is, he means the Nicene Creed just read], the 
Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Cyril and those things which were put 
forth by the Holy Synod are found to agree, and therefore I assent to these 
pious dogmas and approve them.’’? And so Bishop after Bishop testifies and 
votes, and the Epistle of Cyril is approved. 


(/). Nestorius divided the expressions and names used of Christ in the 
Scriptures and in the Nicene Creed between His two natures, some to His Divin- 
ity, others to His humanity, and still others to both natures: whereas Cyril 
attributes all pertaining to His Divinity to It as of natural right pertaining to It, 
and those referring to His humanity he ascribes Economically to God the Word 
to avoid invoking and otherwise worshipping a creature, that is the Man put 
on, as is told on pages 237-240, volume I. of icaea in this Set : see there. 
Nestorius, on the contrary, would give to the Man, the mere creature put on, 
the names and the worship of God the Word relatively, after that Pagan excuse 


χκῖν. Events Before the Council. 


force of the ideas (g). For when he himself was using profane and 
vain babblings (h) in the midst of the Church (2), a certain man of 
the very seemly class and as yet reckoned among laics, but who had 
gathered within himself admirable learning was moved with fervent 
and God-loving (7) zeal and with piercing cry said that the Word 
Himself who was before the world has undergone a second birth 
also, that is to say the one in flesh and out of a Virgin (4). And at 


and evasion, and so fell into what St. Cyril again and again calls the worship of 
a Man (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), (see for examples of Cyril and Nestorius on that in the 
note on pages 81-98, 109-112, 113-115), for which Man-Worship Cyril anathema- 
tizes him in his Anathema VIII., page 331 above. He pronounces the Church’s 
curse on him in his Anathemas IV. and XII. for, in effect, denying the doctrine 
of Economic Appropriation, and for dividing the Son’s names and the expres- 
sions used of Him between His two Natures: see above pages 325, 355-358; 
text, and compare pages 241-268, text. 


(5). The meaning here is much the same as is mentioned in the last note, 
for when Nestorius altered the reference of the words of the Creed of the 318, he 
at the same time thereby dared to falsify the very force of the ideas, that is the 
sense of the Creed. 

(Oe) Ie Wie was. 20 >) Thain 11.5 τὸ; 

(i). Whether the words ‘‘ smzdst of the Church’? refer to the middle part of 
the Church Iam not sure. But the ambon or pulpit was in some of the Eastern 
Churches a raised platform in the middle of the Church as it is still, I think, in 
some Nestorian Churches. I have seen the same thing in an old-fashioned 
Jewish Synagogue. Perhaps the Jewish Christians of the first century brought 
that custom into the Church from their former use of it. 


(7). Or ‘‘dear to God.’ The Greek is φιλοθέῳ ζήλῳ. 


(k). This defender of the Incarnation was Eusebius, a layman. On him 
and on his opposing Nestorius in open Church, see note ‘‘r,’’ page 25 of the 
Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nes- 
torius. It ison the above passage. I quoteapartofit: ‘‘ Eusebius, an Advo- 
cate at Constantinople ; he afterwards put out a protest addressed to the Clergy 
and Laity of that city (Conc. Eph. part. I., Cap. 13, t. iii , 888, ed. Col.) that Nes- 
torius was reviving the false teaching of Paul of Samosata, condemned nearly 
two centuries before; (Marius Mercator, whose translation into Latin of S. Cyril's 
Defences of his 12 Chapters or Anathemas against Nestorius’ errors, and of his 
Scholia on the Incarnation, has come down to us, likewise put out a paper of 
like kind, Opera, pp. 50 sqq. ed. Baluz. 1684). Many years on we read of 
Eusebius, as Bishop of Dorylaeum in Phrygia, as a friend of Eutyches, but 
after fruitless efforts to reclaim him, also his accuser before S. Flavian, Arch- 
bishop of Constantinople.’? A Council at Constantinople with Flavian as 
President, by right of his see as the first of the East, dealt with that matter: 
It met in November, 448. ‘‘ Before this Synod the Bishop Eusebius accused 


Events Before the Council. ZEV: 


that the crowds burst into an uproar, and the most and understand- 
ing part honored him with no mean praises as pious and most full 
of understanding, and not imparticipate in correctness on the dog- 
mas(/), though the others raged against him: but [Nestorius] him- 
self, interrupting, straightway approved those whom he had destroyed 
by teaching them his own errors, and he whets his tongue both 
against him who endured not his heresies (72), and moreover against 
the holy Fathers who made the pious Definition of the Faith (7) as 
a law unto us, ‘ which we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and 
steadfast’ (0). 


‘« ‘For 7 rejoice,’ said he, ‘in beholding your zeal: but from the 
thing itself ἐς a clear refutation of the foulness of what has been said by 
the wretched man (p): for tf we assert two births of him we make him 


Eutyches, who was condemned’”’ [as a One-Natureite]. ‘The August of the 
next year, 449, the Robber Council of Ephesus deposed 5. Flavian (whose mar- 
tyrdom followed immediately, for he was driven into exile to Epipa in Lydia, 
and died there), and Eusebius. Eusebius was likewise ejected from his see, and 
stayed at Rome as Pope S. Leo tells the Empress Pulcheria in a letter (5. Leo 
ad Pulch. 59 [79, col. 1037, ed. Ball.] cited by Fleury 27, 49 English transla- 
tion): Eusebius was at the Council of Chalcedon, he was vindicated at the 
close of the Ist Session (t. iv. 1189, Col.). In the third Session he presents to 
the Council a petition against Dioscorus (ib. 1249, 1251). In the fifth Session 
he was one of those engaged in the handling concerning the holy faith 
τρακταϊσάντων περὶ τῆς ἁγίας πίστεως (ib. 1452): hesigns in the sixteenth Session 
(ib. 1737). A rescript of the Emperor Marcian annuls all that had been done 
against him....Eusebius’ brave and loyal conduct on this present occasion 
while yet a layman, is mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon itself; for when 
that Council had heard the Letter of S. Cyril to John, Archbishop of Antioch, 
to which they gave the Ecumenical sanction of the Church, some of the 
Bishops called out, Εὐσέβιος Νεστόριον καθεῖλε, Eusebius deposed Nestorius. It is 
likewise mentioned by Evagrius (Eccl. Hist. i., 9) who says, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν τοῦ 
Δορύλαίου διέποντος, ὃς Kal ῥήτωρ ἔτι τυγχάνων, πρωτος τὴν Νεστορίου βλασφημίαν διέλεγξεν͵ 
exercising the Bishop’s office at Dorylaeum, who while yet an advocate first 
convitted the blasphemy of Nestorius. Veontius (in the 7th century) writing 
against Nestorius and Eutyches (contra Nest. et Eutych. lib. 3 in Galland. 
Bibl. Vet. Patrum xii., 697) speaks of τί too.’’ 


(ἢ). That is, the dogmas of the Christian faith. 
(m) Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum, 
(x). The Nicene Creed. 

(0). Heb. vi., 19. 

(2). Eusebius. 


ΧΧΥΙ. Livents Before the Council. 


‘wo Sons. But the Church knows [only] one Son, the Master 
Anointed? 7 (Gg): 


This plainly shows that Nestorius did not believe that God the 
Word was born out of the Virgin, a denial which he makes else- 
where, as we see in other parts of this work (7), whence it neces- 
sarily follows that his Christ was a mere Man, and that all worship 
of him was therefore what St. Cyril again and again brands it as be- 
ing, that is mere Man-Worship (Av0pwzolatpera) that is the worship 
of a mere Man, that is a return to the fundamental error of paganism, 
Creature- Worship. Nestorius believed in one birth only of the Con- 
substantial Logos, that is his birth owt of the Father before all the 
worlds, as the Nicene Creed has it. 


Here then Nestorius and his presbyter Anastasius were the at- 
tacking parties. And the quotations from his Sermons in St. Cyril’s 
Five Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius prove con- 
clusively that the heresiarch denied the Incarnation, held to the 
worship of the separate humanity of Christ, and therefore to 
Creature-Worship, and that he held to one-nature Consubstantia- 
tion, and consequently to what St. Cyril terms Cannzbalism 
(Avdpwxogayta) on the Lord’s Supper, and to the other heresies at- 
tributed to him (5). 


(7). Greek, τὸν Δεσπότην Χριστόν. 

(r). See above, especially pages 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163 and 164, 
where Nestorius denies the Incarnation in his own Epistle to Cyril which was 
condemned by the Ecumenical Council: and pages 404-418, text. It should be 
well remembered that the Universal Church has anathematized every one who 
refuses to anathematize Nestorius, and every one who asserts that the Third 
Ecumenical Council condemned Nestorius without examination or inquiry, or 
that it was unjust in condemning him and his fellow heretics, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and the rest of them: see anathemas XI., XII., XIIL., 
and XIV. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 

(5). It is strange how men who are learned in some things blunder in 
others. For instance, Hefele, in the English translation of his History of the 
Church Councils, Vol. 1Π1., page 15, tells us that a ‘‘fragment’’ of one of Nes- 
torius’ sermons ‘‘is directed entirely against the communicatio idiomatum,’’ as 
though St. Cyril of Alexandria or any other of the Orthodox held that heresy ! 
Nestorius held to the error that God the Word’s name and worship may be 
given to the Man put on for the sake of the Word, that is, velatzvely to the 
Word, which is the idolatrous and creature worshipping part of the heresy of 
the Communication of Properties, which paganism St. Cyril, moved by the 
Holy Ghost, curses in accordance with Galatians 1 , 8, 9, in his Anathema VIIL., 


Events Before the Conneil. XxXvii. 


Nor did he stop with maintaining them. He went further and 


which is approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Itis also condemned in 
his Long Epistle, which was also ratified by that Synod : see page 225 above. 
And it was condemned with Passages 6, 7 and 8 of Nestorius on pages 459-462 
above ; and by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Definition and in its Anathe- 
maIX. So that it is most clear that both Cyril and the Universal Church have 
condemned and anathematized that part ofthe doctrine of the Communication 
of the Properties of each of Christ’s two Natures to the other, And according 
to Dr. Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I., page 320, that was the only 
kind of Communication of Properties that ‘‘the Form [of Concord] and the 
Lutheran Scholastics’? taught. For he says there that they ‘ vejected’’ ‘“the 
communication of the attributes of the human nature to the divine nature.”’ 
They believed therefore only in the communication of the attributes of the 
divine nature to the human nature, which inevitably leads to the Nestorian 
creature worship of calling a mere man God, and of bowing to that mere man, 
praying to him, and giving him other acts of worship which are, in effect, ex- 
plained on page 321, as velative to God the Word. As I have sbown further on 
in a note, the Lutherans did worship his humanity. On pages 317-328 of that 
volume Schaff points out the great difference between the Theology of the 
Lutherans and that of the Reformed on the matter of the Communication o/ 
Properties. The Reformed, on that matter, camie much closer to the position of 
Cyril and of the Universal Church in the decisions of Ephesus. Winer, 1n his 
Confessions of Christendom, page 118 of the English translation, gives a state- 
ment of the controversy on the Communtcation of Properties which is clear 
and useful. He shows that the Lutheran position on that point was Nes- 
torianism. I have shown that more fully in a note 1n this volume further on. 
Winer adds on the same page 118; 


‘*The Roman Catholic Church, as such, took no part in the controversy; 
only a few of her polemical divines have expressly declared against the Com- 
municatio Idiomatum : Bellarm. de Christo. iii., το, seq.; Becan. Man. Cont. ii., 
1; Klee, Kath. Dog. i. 445." Hefele seems therefore to imply that the Frag- 
ment of Nestorius’ Sermon, in making against the dogma ofthe Communication 
of Properties, agreed with some of his own Roman theologians. If so they 
were heretics and opposed to Cyril and to Ephesus. The fact is that Hefele did 
not understand some parts of the controversy between Nestorius and St. Cyril. 
St. Cyril denied that the name, the attributes, or the worship of God the Word 
can be ascribed to the mere Man, the mere Creature put on by Him. On the 
other hand he held that all the things of God the Word and all those of the 
man put on must be ascribed to God the Word alone, the divine things as be 
longing naturally to his Divine Nature ; and the human things of the man put 
on, are to be ascribed to him Economically only, to avoid worshipping that Man 
(AvbpetoAatpeia), which he denounces again and again as opposed to Christ’s law 
in Matthew iv., 10, and to other texts of Holy Writ. Strangely enough, Luther, 
while Nestorian in ascribing the things of God the Word to His humanity, 
nevertheless, according to Dr Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1., page 


XXVIII. Events Before the Council. 


deposed clerics and persecuted laics for defending the sound doc- 
trines which in his ignorance he hated and despised, for he would 
not endure God’s truths opposed to those infidelities and pagan- 
izings. 

The news of the controversy and the persecution of the Ortho- 
dox travelled rapidly and reached Cyril at his home in Alexandria. 
The wrong done by Nestorius to his opponents among his clergy 
and people called for help. The Faith itself was at stake. Nes- 
torius was vehement and active. He had a zeal for God, but not ac- 
cording to knowledge (a). Socrates, his contemporary at Constanti- 
nople, tells us how when he was ordained on April 10, 428, to the 
throne of that city, ‘‘ stvaightway, when preaching,’’ he said, ‘‘ to the 
Emperor before all the people ; Give me, O Emperor, the earth purged 
of the heretics, and I will give thee the heaven in return. Assist me to 
destroy the heretics, and 7 will assist thee tn destroying the Persians” 
(ὁ). On the fourth day after his ordination (¢) he destroyed an ora- 
tory of the Arians. He moved against the Novatians, to whom 
Socrates is thought by some to have belonged, but his impetuosity 
was checked by the counsel or exhortation of the authorities. He 
did much against the Quartodecimans, that is the Fourteenth- 
dayites, of Lydia and Caria, though an insurrection or riots were 
the result, in which some died (4). He induced by his example, 
according to Socrates (e), Antony, Bishop of Germa in Hellespontus, 
to crush the Macedonians, but they killed him: on which account 
Nestorius persuaded the authorities to take away their churches, 
when some of them came over to the faith of the Consubstantiality. 
In this disposition to get rid of the heresies which infested some 
places and were disturbing and disorganizing elements against 


320, *‘ boldly uses such expressions as ‘God suffered,’ ‘God died.’’’ See the 
German there quoted in a note, which accords with Cyril’s Anathema XII., ap- 
proved by the Third Council, and with his doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 
made Ecumenical by the same Synod, for it approved Cyril’s two Epistles 
which contain it. 

(ἡ): Rom= x. 5/2. 

(ὁ). Socrates’ Accl. Hist., Book VII., Chapter 29. 

(c). The Greek has ‘‘on the fifth day,’’ but according to our way of reckon- 
ing it was the fourth. 

(4). Socrates’ Accl. Hist., Book VII., Chapter 29. 

(2); Id: Chapter 31: , 


Events Before the Council. Xxix. 


Church and State, Nestorius acted as the good kings Josiah and 
Hezekiah acted against error, such as idolatry, and its maintainers, 
and as the blessed Reforming King Edward VI., and Elizabeth, the 
greatest of queens, acted against the Romish idolaters, the Anti- 
Trinitarians, the Anabaptists, and other wild sects whose devotees, 
if successful, would have ruined Church and State in England. 
They may ruin it yet, the more especially as the Orthodoxy then 
enforced against ignorant idolatrous Romanizers and wild and ignor- 
ant and anarchizing sectarianizers inside the Church of England is, 
alas! enforced no longer by the wretched and utterly unworthy. 
Bishops of it now. The Church has never faulted, therefore, Nes- 
torius for doing his duty in suppressing heresies (a). His fault lay 


(a). De Pressensé in his article on Augustine of Hippo in Smith and 
Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. I., page 218, inner column, 
has a good passage from him in favor of the duty of the civil magistrate to sup- 
press heresy from which De Pressensé unwisely dissents. The Universal Church 
in her VI. Councils is committed to the principle that it is his duty to suppress 
all creature invocation and image worship, etc. The Great Reformers of the 
Continent, Luther, and Calvin, as well asthe English Reformers, all admitted 
the principle and acted on it, as the pious Reforming Kings Josiah and Hezekiah 
had done before them. That man who would let idolatrizers, Mormons, Mo- 
hammedans and others propagate their errorsin Christian lands and seduce and 
ruin the souls of the simple, (alas ! always a numerous class and easily gulled), 
and stir up civil war, is guilty of a false and traitorous liberalism which is really 
treason to Christ and to souls. God’s ancient law forbade marriage with such 
and permitted them not to have part or lot in the governing of Israel, and pro- 
hibited them from ever being regarded as a part of the nation and from own- 
ing any land init. But alas! under the teaching of infidels we are permitting 
the contrary to all these laws of God, and so, many of our people are being per- 
verted by such and they are ruining Church and State. We should for our own 
safety at once oust all such elements from our midst and keep them out. Our 
country is ours as much as our homes are. Indeed, it is the common home of 
us all. We may therefore keep out of it whom we will. It was settled by men 
who worshipped the Triune God alone. They alone governed it, and were 
therefore blessed. But God has promised to curse the idolater and the creature- 
invoker, as he always has. And the more of them and of Mormons and Mo- 
hammedans we admit, and the more we let them vote and so govern, the more 
of God’s curse we admit on ourselves and on our government. Rome aud the 
Mohammedans are taught by their religion to crush us. Both of them have 
been the cause of the deaths of vast numbers of Christians. So will they do 
again if they can. And the Mormons look forward to the time when they shall 
subjugate and rule us. Such elements therefore should have no place among 
us. Nor should the blasphemous, Cliristianity-hating, Christ-blaspheming 


eG. Events Before the Council. 


in going so far as to attempt to destroy the Orthodox and saving 


Jew. See the fake bread riots he raises in New York, and his demand that the 
State or city shall furnish work at his own rates of pay, though most that 
make this demand have been but a few years in this land. Their demand 
in effect means that the Christian people of New York State shall pay for allow- 
ing them to live among us, when they can go back to their own country 
but will not so long as we let them vote and rule us. There is said to be 
250,000 of them in New York City alone. The riotous, anarchic, socialistic, 
nihilistic, and other disturbing elements among us are nearly all from Romish 
or Jewish homes, and most of them are foreigners, and will compel us to in- 
crease our police and military force torule them. They force us now to pay for 
the property which they destroy intheir riots and disorders, and to pay also for 
the militia who are called out to suppress them. Inthis way they have saddled 
debts of millions on us in places, under which our patient and peaceful people 
groan. Yet the New Testament forbids us to intermarry with them (II. Cor. 
vi., 14-18 ; I. Cor. vii., 39); and they also forbid marriage with us, so far apart 
are we in heart and aims and hopes: and we are taught that idolaters and the 
unbaptized can not be saved (I. Cor. vi., 9, 10; Galat. v., 19-22; and Rev. xxi., 
8). We are taught that if we receive into our houses or even bid God speed to 
an opponent of the Trinity and the Incarnation, we are partakers “of his evil 
deeds”? (II. John xi.). Does not this principle apply to the Mohammedan and 
the idolater also? Does it mean that we should not only receive them into our 
national house, but make them partakers of its property and of rule over us? 


But it niay be said that this principle that the civil magistrate should pre- 
vent the spread of the poison and curse of Anti-Christian error and Anti-Chris- 
tian rule and tyranny over us, is liable to abuse; that it may be applied by 
errorists to the crushing of the truth. I answer, that is true, but so long as we 
follow the decisions of the Holy-Ghost-led Six World Councils we shall not go 
astray, but shall preserve our homes, our families, and our country from curs- 
ing spiritual and material. For ‘‘ Righteousness,’’ taught by God’s ministers 
of the spirituals, and enforced by God’s ministers of secular things (Rom. xiil., 
1-8) in law and in Government as in Solomon’s earlier days, and as in the days 
of pious rulers in all times, ‘‘exalleth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any 
people’? (Prov. xiv., 34). ‘‘ Godliness,’ so taught and enforced, “15 profitable 
unto all things, having promise of the life that now ts,’? and that now as ever 
both in Church and State, ‘‘ azd of that which 15 to come. Oh! that we had an 
Orthodox Six Councils party in this land to so rule and govern it to God’s best 
pleasing and to our best good, and to the best good of all our people, that it 
may be madeImmanuel’s land! God grant itsoon. Forit will come. For it 
is predifted that the Kingdoms of this world are to become the Kingdoms of 
our Lord and of his Christ (Rev. xi., 15), and he and his saints are to reign on 
this earth a thousand years (Rev. xx., I-7). We should leave therefore the in- 
fidel Tom Jefferson’s theories of government without God and Christ and His 
Church, and follow the higher constitution of God’s Word and God’s Church in 
our Stateno less than in our Church. God grant it soon, and that every day 


Events Before the Council, ἘΧΈΙ, 


Faith itself, as is told above. If, as is thought by some, and as I 
myself also incline to think, Socrates was a Novatian, his dislike of 
Nestorius for suppressing heresies and attempting to suppress his 
schism is easily explicable on the ground and principle that 


‘‘ No rogue e’er felt the halter draw, 
With good opinion of the law.”’ 


Nestorius’ Book of Sermons or Expositions on the matters in- 
volved in the controversy went forth. It created havoc with the 
faith of some. It reached Egypt, and might have affected the minds 
of some of Cyril’s monks. This led him as a faithful pastor to 
write his valuable Epzstle to the Monks of Egypt in which he defends 
the doctrines of the Inman and that God alone is to be worshipped, 
against Nestorius’ assault on them. For he saw at once that Nes- 
torius’ denial of the Incarnation necessarily resulted in the worship 
of Christ’s mere humanity, which, of course, is Creature-Worship, 
that is the Worship of a creature. And hence, atthe very outset. on 
his entering the lists as a Champion for Christ’s Orthodoxy, he de- 
nounces both errors and warns against them. He writes to the 
Monks especially, because in the Nicene Controversy and before him, 
the Monks who preserved bodily chastity had ever been foremost to 
defend spiritual chastity, and to reject the spiritual whoredom of 
worshipping creatures (a). 


Probably, about that time Cyril put forth his Fzve Book Contra- 
dittion of the Blasphemtes of Nestorius. At tue beginning he tells us 
that he had ‘‘ met with a certain book by the person who put rt together 
(6) which has a large collection of Homilies, which are arranged 
consecutively [as to time] and, so to speak, inorder.’ Cyril goes on 
to say that if he had deemed what its author had written would come 


we may by our own efforts, votes, and prayers, come nearer to it, and get farther 
every day from the vile Tammany politics and vile politicai sheets which rule 
and waste and ruin. 


(a). See on that page 115, Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, where Avoper in 
line 13 from the foot of the page should be Jewell. and Gloucester should be 
Salisbury. 


(6). Nestorius. Cyril speaks in this indefinite way, perhaps out of charity 
to Nestorius, that he might draw him to repent by gentleness in suppressing 
his name. What precedes is largely an exhortation to keep the faith and to 
avoid error, which Nestorius might well take to himself. 


xxl. Events Before the Council. 


to naught he would have deemed it wise to hold his peace and to 
counsel others to do the same, lest wider publicity should be given 
to the evil in it. His motives have been grievously slandered by 
should be friend and foe. His resistance to Nestorian errors has 
been ascribed to jealousy of the great see of Constantinople, and I 
know not to what else. But his own story told in his own words 
in the same place on that book shows the prudence, and at the same 
time the self-sacrifice of his own soul. The see of Constantinople 
was a strong foe to fight against, The Second Ecumenical Synod 
in its third Canon had made it the second see of the Christian World, 
and the first of the East. And Wiltsch in his Geography and Statis- 
tics of the Church, English translation, Vol. I., pages 145-154, shows 
that Nectarius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople, A. D. 381-397, 
exercised Appellate Jurisdiction not only in the Dioceses of Asia 
Minor and Pontus but also, in one case at least, in the Patriarchate of 
Antioch ; and, if he could interfere in the jurisdiction of Antioch, 
there was no power to hinder him from interfering in the Patri- 
archate of Alexandria. So that Cyril had cause to dread lest Nes- 
storius might interfere with him and deprive him of his rights and 
of his see if he opposed his errors. Indeed as the Court Patriarch 
he had great power with the Emperor. Theodosius the Second’s 
dislike to Cyril and his threat against him in a letter of this period 
shows how much and how unjustly he had been influenced against 
him. Cyril therefore in taking the side of God’s truth perilled for 
it his rank and honors. Indeed, further on during the session of 
this very Council, we shall find the Emperor depriving him of both 
for a time, and indeed of his liberty besides, till he was induced by 
others to be less severe. Wiltsch, as just referred to, shows how 
Chrysostom, Arsacius, and Atticus, who were Bishops of Constanti- 
nople between Nectarius and Nestorius, enlarged the power of their 
see against the Canons, and got the Emperor to help them: so that 
they had about as much power over the Bishops of the Eastern EKm- 
pire as Rome had over those of the Western. Indeed it may be 
justly said that each of thse great sees advanced at about an equal 
pace (pari passu) in their struggle to secure the headship and con- 
trol of the bishops of its own Empire and to get the power of receiv- 
ing Appeals from them, in other words the power of Appellate Juris- 
di@tion over them. In the West we find Hilary, Metropolitan of 
Arles in Gaul, resisting Leo I. of Rome in that matter as he had a 


Events Before the Council. ὡς «Ὁ ἢ 


right to do by the Canons of the first three Ecumenical Councils. 
But, in A. D. 445, Leo induced the Western Emperor, Valentinian 
III., to issue an edict overriding their Canons and giving him the 
power of Appellate Jurisdiction there and in those parts of the West 
to which the secular power of the Empire still extended, and so 
Hilary and Gaul were subjugated by force (a). In Latin Africa, as 
will be told elsewhere in this Set, Leo’s predecessors, Zosimus, 
Boniface, and Celestine, met with stout resistance on the part of the 
Bishops, and utterly failed to get it (6). In Britain, in the period of 
Augustine’s life there, towards the end of the sixth century or the 
beginning of the seventh, we find the British Christians refusing to 
submit to Rome, to the Patriarchate of which indeed they had never 
belonged, but were always, as now, autocephalous (¢). For origin- 
ally Rome’s Patriarchate did not extend outside of Italy nor even 
include all of it (4). 


But while Rome was thus trying to subdue parts of the West 
and was violating the Canons of the Ecumenical Synods, to concen- 
trate all Western Ecclesiastical power in Rome by getting the 
authority to receive appeals from it all, and to that end trying to get 
the Emperor to back it with his secular forces, how fared it with the 
attempt of the Bishop of Constantinople to subdue all parts of the 
East by getting the power of Appellate Jurisdiction over it all, and 
to violate the Canons of the first three Ecumenical Synods in order 
to effect it, and to induce the Eastern Emperor to back up his de- 
signs by the civil and military power? Wiltsch, in the place last 
cited, tells us. Canon III. of the Second Ecumenical Synod, as 
understood at Constantinople, gives him the same power in the Hast 
as Rome had in the West. And although it does not state the 
exact limits of his Patriarchate, and though its Canons 11. and VI. 
forbade him to exercise jurisdiction outside of Thrace, nevertheless 


(a). See the article in Smith and Wace’s Diftionary of Christian Btogra- 
phy on Leo I. of Rome and that on Hilary there. 

(6). See id., the articles on Popes Zosimus, Boniface, and Coelestine L., 
and more fully in Chrystal’s Articles in the Church Journal of New York for 
1870, (Aug. ro and after), on the Struggle in Centuries V. and VI. of Rome to 
get Appellate Jurisdiction in Latin Africa. 

(c). See Bingham’s Antiguities, Book IX., Chapter i., sections 9-12 in- 
clusive. 

(dz). Ibid. 


XXIV. Lvents Before the Council, 


we find before Ephesus, its Patriarchs exercising it in the Dioceses 
of Asia, Pontus, and the East: and, as Wiltsch states, Atticus, its 
Bishop, ‘‘ obtained from the younger Theodosius, in 421, the law, 
‘that no Bishop should be ordained in the dioceses of Asia, Thrace, 
and Pontus, without the sanction of the Bishop of Constantinople, ac- 
cording to which law, also, Eastern Illyricum was added to the pri- 
mateship of Constantinople ’’ (Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of 
the Church, English translation, vol. I., page 150). Boniface, Bishop 
of Rome, however, got back Eastern Illyricum, and Rome held it till 
A. D. 730, when Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of the East, gave it to 
the See of Constantinople, together with parts of Italy which had 
always appertained to the jurisdiction of Rome, that is Calabria and 
Sicily (4). Finally, only about twenty years after the Third Ecu- 
menical Council, that is in the Fourth World Council in A. D. 451, 
against the protests of the Roman legates, it got by its Canon 
XXVIII., the three great Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and 
tlie Churches among the barbarians, and by its Canon IX. it secured 
the right of Appellate Jurisdiction over every Patriarchate and 
Province of the Eastern Empire, which indeed it had at least in great 
part exercised before Nestorius. For the same general law applied 
then as ever since, that is that all ecclesiastical appeals in every Km- 
pire naturally gravitate towards the Bishop ofits Capital. For often 
men carried such appeals to the Emperor, contrary to the Canons, 
and he referred them to the Bishop of the capital city, to whom he 
was nearest, and under whose influence he was. Constantinople 
was therefore a powerful see for an Eastern to oppose. Every sel- 
fish motive would dissuade Cyril from so doing. His own story as 
to how he came to take part in this contest shows how reluctantly 
he went into it, and the purity and nobility of his motives in so do- 
ing. Duty, not passion, shines forth as the ruling motive in the 
whole simple narrative. I quote him here. After the words last 
quoted from him, in which he speaks of having met with Nestorius’ 
Homilies, he continues, 


«ς And if something had been said by its author which was pass- 
ing into oblivion and disappearing, I would have deemed it a duty, 
both that I myself should hold my peace, and that I should advise 
others to do the same, in order that what has been said by him so 
ΔΉ τ DAME RUIN PN Ace TIE se SEE σου 

(6). Wiltsch, id., vol. I., page ΞΟ: 


Events Before the Council. Xxx; 


out of place and so carelessly might not become known to many 
others, and to those after us. But forasmuch as a multitude of 
blasphemies has been heaped up in the book, and some great accu- 
sation has been made which barks against the dogmas of the truth, 
why was it not necessary that we should, so to speak, strip for com- 
bat, and should fight in behalf of its readers, that they may not suf- 
fer any hurt thence, but, on the contrary, may know how to repel 
bravely the damage from what has not been rightly said ?’’ (c.) 

In his ive Book Contradiction of the Blaphemies of Nestorius Cyril 
quotes nearly all or all of the twenty chief Blasphemies in the Sermons 
or Homilies of Nestorius which were afterwards quoted against him in 
Act I. of Ephesus, on the basis of which he was deposed. Those 
quotations assert not only his three chief errors, that is his denial of 
the Inman, his Worship of Christ’s separate humanity, and his 
Cannibalism on the Eucharist, but also all his other heresies. Dur- 
ing the days and weeks of waiting at Ephesus we may be well 
assured that copies of that work served to enlighten and strengthen 
the Bishops against the various heresies of Nestorius, so that they 
were well prepared when the time came, towards the close of the first 
Act, to depose him on account of them, as they did. We have a 
translation of this important work into English, but it fails to give 
the correct sense in places. It should be revised and republished. 

Besides, the Orthodox clergy put out at Constantinople a pro- 
test and a statement against Nestorius in which they asserted that 
he taught the errors of Paul of Samosata. 


Besides, Basil the Deacon and Archimandrite, and Theosebius, 
a Reader and Monk, and the rest of the Monks set forth a petition 
to the Emperors against Nestorius and for an Ecumenical Council. 


Cyril of Alexandria wrote three Epistles to Nestorius. The 
first was called forth by the anger and violent expressions of Nesto- 
rius when he learned the contents of Cyril’s Efzstle to the Monks. 
In the first letter to the heresiarch Cyril justly asserts that he was 
not the cause of the controversy which was disturbing the Church, 
but Nestorius or his friend was, and he informed him that some, led 
astray by his error, would not call Christ God but merely an 
inspired Man, a thing which, we may add, would lead, of course, to 


(c). Ῥ. E. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril of Alexandria’s Works, vol. VI., pages 
57, 58. 


ἘΣ ΧΙ. Events Before the Council. 

the Worship of a mere man. And Cyril informs him of the 
agitation in the Church, West and East, regarding his errors, and of 
the unfavorable reports regarding his Orthodoxy. Nestorius’ reply 
was brief and haughty, and showed that he still clung fast to his er- 
rors. ‘The next two letters of Cyril are of memorable worth, and 
were made of Ecumenical authority in ΑΕ 1. of Ephesus. In the 
first of the two which is found, with the call for its reading, on 
pages 52-121 above, Cyril sets forth the true doctrine against 
Nestorius’ denial of the Inman, against his Man-Worship, and 
against his denial of the doctrine of Economic Appropriation. It is 
termed Cyril’s Shorter Epistle, shorter, that is, as compared with 
Cyril’s Longer, which followed it. It was confirmed by a formal 
vote of the Synod on pages 129-154 above. 


Nestorius replies, repeatedly denies the Incarnation, and rejects 
the doctrine of Economic Appropriation. His letter, with the call 
for it, is found on pages 154-166 above. ‘The formal voting in 
condemnation of it is found on pages 166-178. 

Meanwhile Nestorius had writen to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, 
in regard to some Pelagians who had gone to Constantinople for 
help against their condemners in the West, and he endeavors to win 
him to his own side against Cyril. Cyril also writes to Celestine, 
instructs him regarding the vital doctrines involved, and endeavors 
to win him to his side and to the truth. He sends with his 
Epistle a memorandum on Nestorius’ errors. Celestine takes sides 
with Cyril. John of Antioch and his Patriarchate are strong against 
Cyril and for Nestorius. Two of his ablest prelates, Andrew of 
Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrus, write against Cyril’s XII. 
Chapters. Cyril replies to each separately. Many letters pass 
hither and yon of which, with thosejust mentioned, we will give a 
fuller account in another volume on Ephesus. ‘There is no room 
here. Finally it becomes clear that outside of the Patriarchate of 
Alexandria the whole Church is almost unanimous for Cyril and 
Orthodoxy. The Emperor Theodosius the Second, at the solicita- 
tion of many, is induced to call an Ecumenical Council to meet at 
Ephesus on Pentecost, June 7, A.D. 431. The decree is dated 
November 19, 430, and bears the name of the Western Emperor, 
Valentinian III., as well as hisown. See it above, withthe call for 
it, on pages 178-203, and compire pages 5-8. Before that a Coun- 
cil had been held at Rome, and a Svnodal letter of Celestine and 


Events Before the Council. p 90.4 5 
Ca en RO Br ore Rr a ει Pn eos eet ase cee 
it, dated August 11, A. D. 430, had been sent to Nestorius warning 
him, at its end, as follows: 

‘‘Know therefore clearly, that our sentence is this, namely, 
that unless thou preach those very doctrines concerning our God 
Anointed, which both the Church of the Romans and the Church 
of the Alexandrians, and all the Universal Church holds fast, and as 
the holy Church in the great city of Constantine very well held fast 
until thee, and unless within the tenth day reckoned from the time 
that this admonition comes to thy knowledge, thou put away by a 
clear and written confession that unbelieving novelty and innovation 
of thine which attempts to separate the very things which the holy 
Scripture joins together, thou art cast out from the communion of 
the Universal Church. We have sent this very decision of our 
judgment on thee by our son aforesaid, Posidonius the Deacon, with 
all the papers to {πθ΄ μον man, our Fellow-Bishop, the Priest of the 
aforesaid Alexandria, who has given us a very complete account 
regarding this very matter, in order that he may hold our place and 
attend to this thing, that so what has been decided by us may be 
made known to thee and to all the brethren; because all ought to 
know what is done, as often as the investigation is on a matter of in- 
terest in common.’’ Cyril was therefore authorized to represent 
Celestine and all the Bishops of the Roman Council, whose Con- 
ciliar Epistle the above is part of. After that, in the same year, St. 
Cyril assembles another Synod at Alexandria of his Patriarchate, and 
in connection with it puts forth in his Long Epistle a full Statement 
of the doctrinal points involved, and accepts and approves the 
decision of the Synodal Epistle of Celestine and his Synod, and to 
it adds his own authority and that of his Diocesan Council, and tells 
Nestorius what he must do within ten days after the reception of his 
Epistle if he would not be excommunicated by the whole Church. 
‘The place especially pertinent is on pages 209-213, text, in this 
work above. Cyril’s four messengers, with the Long Letter and the 
documents from Rome reached Constantinople, and gave them to 
Nestorius, according to Professor Bright’s article Cyv7/us in Smith 
and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. I., page 767, 
inner col., on Lord’s Day, November 30, or December 7, A. D. 430 
after the Eucharistic service. The tenth day after that would at 
the latest be December 16, or 17. But what follows shows that 
though in the Appeal to the Whole Church distributed in sees, that 


XXXVili. Events Before the Council. 


is not assembled in an Ecumenical Council, the majority were 
evidently against Nestorius, he held his see after that excommunica- 
tion by the Patriarch of Rome and by the Patriarch of Alexandria, 
and by their Synods, till he was fairly tried and deposed by the 
Third Ecumenical Council; and noteworthy also is the fact that he 
was not condemned and deposed because both those great prelates 
had excommunicated him from their commnnion and from the com- 
munion of all who agreed with them and went so far as to ratify 
their act before the Synod met, but because on examination of all 
the points involved in the two Epistles of Cyril, and in Nestorius’ 
Epistle, and in the Twenty Blasphemies of Nestorius, they found him 
heretical. For after giving him summons after summons to come 
and defend himself, the Bishops proceeded to approve Cyril’s ut- 
terances as 2722 accordance with the true sense of the Nicene Creed and 
Faith, and to condemn and depose Nestorius on the ground that his 
were not. See especially above, pages 129-154, the language of 
Cyril in asking whether his Shorter Epistle does not agree with 
the Nicene Creed, and that of the Bishops in answer when voting 
on that Epistle; and above, page 154, when Palladius, Bishop 
of Amasea, states the question to be decided, that is, as to the agree- 
ment of Nestorius’ Epistle to St. Cyril with the Nicene Creed; 
and page 166, where St. Cyril of Alexandria puts the question to 
the Council, as to whether Nestorius’ Epistle agrees with the Faith 
defined at Nicaea, and pages 166-178, where the Bishops answer 
his query. No man then deemed that the decision of the Bishop of 
Rome settled the question, nor that he and a Roman Council by 
themselves, and Cyril of Alexandria and the Synod of his Diocese, 
by themselves, or all of them together, could settle the matter, and 
that an Ecumenical Synod was unnecessary, or that all it had to do 
was to ratify their local decisions without any examination of the 
writings of Nestorius and of Cyril, and without allowing Nestorius 
a fair trial. ΑἹ] that Celestine and his Council could do alone was 
to testify that they condemned Nestorius for his errors and put him 
out of their communion; and all that Cyril and his Synod could 
testify to was that they condemned him for the same errors and put 
him out of theircommunion. But the other Metropolitans, Juvenal 
of Jerusalem, Memnon of Ephesus, Firmus of Caesarea, and all the 
rest of the Metropolitans, and their Bishops who came with them, 
demanded also that their judgments be taken, and they were, as we 


Events Before the Council. =x Kie. 


see by their utterances and votes above. And so, as Christ in Matt. 
xviii., 18, and in John xx, 19-24, had given the power of bind- 
ing and loosing to all the Apostolate, and not to one only, all bound 
Nestorius justly. ΤῸ the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the 
truth (1. Tim. iii., 15), represented by that Apostolate to whom 
Christ promised His Spirit forever to guide them into all truth 
(John xiv., 16,17: compare Matt. xxviii., 19, 20), He made good 
His promise, and by the Spirit’s aid they formulated infallibly and 
forever. He condemned by them Nestorius’ denial of the Inman, his 
worship of a mere creature, and, by necessary implication, any and 
all other worship of any other creature whomsoever, and any and all 
worship of any mere thing; and the Synod formulated also the 
Holy Ghost’s condemnation of Nestorius’ Consubstantiation, and, 
by necessary implication, His condemnation of the later heresy of 
Transubstantiation, of both kinds, the Latin,and the Greek, and of the 
worship of the Host. The doctrine of Cyril and of Ephesus is that 
of the veal absence from the Eucharist of the Substance of Christ's 
Divinity and the substance of His humanity, as opposed to the vead 
presence of both there, and of one of them there. This guards well 
and thoroughly against the idolatry of worshipping any sort of an 
alleged real presence of Christ’s Divinity or of His humanity, or of 
both of them in the rite, for neither of them is there. See Cyril to. 
that effect above, pages 232-241, text, and pages 250-313, note. 
But if the Apostolate had deemed Celestine’s act of Excommunica- 
tion wrong, they would have refused to ratify it, as they refused to 
ratify his predecessor Victor's excommunication of the Asiatic 
Churches which clung to the observance of the Fourteenth Day 
Pask, and they would have censured him with the same severity 
with which some had censured Victor. For in Eusebius’ Acdesz- 
astical History, Book V, Chapter 24, we read that Polycrates, Bishop 
of Ephesus, contended for his own Fourteenth Day Pask in a letter 
which he wrote to Victor, who was Bishop of Rome, A. Ὁ. 185-197. 
Polycrates derived his local custom from the Apostles Philip and 
John, and from Polycarp and others before him. I give a translation 
of what next occured after Polycrates’ defence of his custom and 
the custom of other churches in that part of Asia: 


sch) Events Before the Council. 


“Upon this, Victor, the Bishop of the Church of the Romans, 
forthwith attempted to cut off the parecs (@) of all [Proconsular] 
Asia, together with the neighboring Churches,as heterodox, from the 
common unity. And he denounces them by letters, and proclaims 
that all the brethren there are wholly excommunicated. But that 
was not pleasing to all the Bishops. They therefore urged him, on 
the contrary (4), to think of those things which make for peace and 
for unity and love towards those who are near [tous]. And there 
are extant the utterances of those who assailed Victor very 
smitingly (c). And among them was Irenaeus, who, in the name of 
those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, wrote an epistle in 
which he maintains on the one hand that we ought to celebrate 
the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord on the day of the Lord’s 
resurrection only (4); but, on the other hand, he fitly admomishes 
(4) him in very many other words that he should not cut off whole 
Churches of God, who guard the tradition of an ancient custom ”’ 
(f). And so Victor failed in his attempt to put the Churches of 


(a). Greek, τῆς ᾿Ασίας πάσης... τὰς παροικίας. 1 have rendered παροικίας here 
by parecs which is derived from it, because Jarish, the other word derived from 
it, has come in the later times to signify not what we in the West now 
call a diocese, the meaning of παροικίας here, but a single congregation in a dio- 
cese. I might have used @zocese, only that it is often used in this work in the 
Greek sense of a civil diocese which included two or more provinces. 

(ὁ). Greek, ᾿Αντιπαρακελεύονται, which may be also rendered, ‘‘ They there- 
fore commanded him on the contrary,” or “ They therefore exhorted him on 
the contrary,’ though κελεύω means often or generally, to 67d, command, order. 

(5) Thatis, severely. 

(1). The reference is to the annual commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, 
not to the weekly, which occurs every Lord’s Day, for it is the resurrection day. 
The Fourteenthdayites kept it on whatever day of the week it fell. 

(2). Or, “advises.” 

(f). Eusebius’ ΚΖ εἰ. Hist. Book V., Chapter 24, page 169 of Bright’s 
edition of the Greek: ’Eri τούτοις ὁ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ ἀθρόως τῆς 
᾿Ασίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτέμνειν, ὡς ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς 
κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται" καὶ στηλιτεύει γε διὰ γραμμάτων, ἀκοινωνήτους πάντας ἄρδην τοὺς 


ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. “Αλλ᾽ οὐ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτ᾽ ἠρέσκετο. ᾿Αντιπα- 
ρακελεύίονται δῆτα αὐτῷ, τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πλησίον ἑνώσεώς τε καὶ ἀγάπης 
φρονεῖν. Φέρονται δὲ καὶ αἱ τούτων φωναὶ, πληκτικώτερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίκτορος. ᾽Ἐν 


οἷς καὶ ὁ Ἑἰρηναῖος ἐκ προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, παρίσταται 
μὲν τῷ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς Κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι 
μυστήριον" τῷ γε μὴν Βίκτορι προσηκόντως, ὡς μὴ ἀποκόπτοι ὅλας ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, ἀρχαίον 
ἔθους παράδοσιν ἐπιτηροῦσας, πλεῖστα ἕτερα παραινεῖ, 


Events Before the Council. ASI 


Proconsular Asia and the neighboring Churches out of the com- 
munion of the Universal Church ; and they remained in good stand- 
ing in it, and kept to their local custom of the Fourteenth Day 
Pask. We see in this instance, that a Bishop of Rome may 
attempt, to use Eusebius’ term, to excommunicate Churches, and he 
may denounce them by letter, and proclaim that they are wholly excom- 
municated,and yet any Bishop, East or West, may exhort and rebuke 
him, and may assazl him very smitingly, that is, very severely, and the 
opposition of a majority of them utterly defeats his attempt to ex- 
communicate and brings it tonought. So that he is under them and 
their authority, though he be ‘‘ the first among his equals’’(a). And 


(a). In speaking above of the Bishop of Rome as being ¢he first among his 
equals, when he was equal to them in purity and soundness of doctrine, discip- 
line, and rite, I donot intend to imply that Leo XIII., the present occupant of 
Peter’s Western see (Antioch is his Eastern) is to be deemed either equal to 
sound Bishops who worship God alone, and anathematize all invocation of 
creatures and all image worship, or a Bishop at all. For in determining a 
Bishop’s right to that title and his standing, the Church has always asked, first, 
Does he defend, maintain and propagate all the dod¢trine, discipline, rite and 
custom of the Six Ecumenical Synods, and, where they have not spoken, all the 
doctrine, discipline, rite, and custom of the primitive Church, especially of the 
Ante-Nicene period, when they were purest: in other words, Does he maintain 
what has been held always, everywhere and by all? Tried by those standards 
the present so-called Bishop of Rome is sadly wanting. For, to mention only 
a few of his errors against the VI. Synods, 


1. He contradicts the Sixth Ecumenical Council 2722 claiming Infallibitity 
for every occupant of his see: whereas the Fifth Ecumenical Synod censured 
his predecessor Vigilius for lack of duty regarding matters of do(trine, that is, 
his course on the Three Chapters; and the Sixth condemned Honorius, Bishop of 
Rome, as a heretic: Vigilius afterwards repented and submitted himself to that 
Council and withdrew all his writings which disagree with it. 


2. Leo XIII. contradicts the utterances and the Decisions of the Third 
Ecumenical Council, which, in forbidding the worship of Christ’s separate hu- 
manity, which is confessedly the highest of all mere creatures, on the ground 
that it is sinful to worship a creature, by necessary implication forbade the wor- 
ship of any lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary, a martyr, or any other saint, 
an archangel, or any angel, or any other creature whomsoever. Much more 
(a fortiori) did it necessarily forbid any act of worship to mere inanimate things, 
such as relics, images, both picture, and graven, and every other inanimate 
thing. For Leo XIII is the chief fosterer of all such creature-worship. Rome 
is the spiritual Harlot, the great spreader of that creature worship which is 
spiritual whoredom (Rev. xvii., 18, and all that chapter and chapter xviii.). 


ΧΙ]. Events Before the Council. 


Polycrates, whom Victor éried to get the Christian world to excom- 


3. On the Eucharist he holds to and teaches the Romish form of the 
tenet of Transubstantiation and the worship of the wafer and the wine as God, 
he asserting that they have been transubstantiated into God. And so he con- 
tradi&s the Third Ecumenical Council which approved the teaching of St. 
Cyril of Alexandria against the heresiarch Nestorius, that there is no Transub- 
stantiation of the substance of the leavened bread (wafers were not used in 
Cyril's day) into the Substance of Christ’s Divinity, nor into the substance of 
His body, and that there is no transubstantiation of the substance of the wine 
into the Substance of His Divinity or of His blood: and that the Substance of His 
Divinity is neither eaten in the rite nor present there, and that the substance of His 
humanity is neither eaten in the rite nor present there; and that if it were there 
eaten it would be what St. Cyril calls ἀνθρωποφαγία, that is, CANNIBALISM. And 
as there is no real presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the Euchar- 
ist, there is there, according to Cyril, nothing to worship. Henceall worship of 
what is really, notwithstanding all the notion of Leo XIII. to the contrary, 
only wafer and wine still, is soul destroying idolatry. For all admit that the 
idolater shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. vi., 9, το ; Galat. v., 19-22; 
Rev. xx1., 8). 


These are his errors on three points only, but they are all fundamental and 
saving. And what is vastly important, the Ecumenical Councils which set 
forth the truths above opposed to them, at the same time pronounce deposition 
on every Bishop and Cleric who opposes them, and anathema on every laic 
who does. See the Anathema at the end of the Definition of the Sixth Ecu- 
menical Council, and the Preface to the Canons of Ephesus, and its Canons; 
and the Definition and the Canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the 
end of its Canon XIV. 


Leo XIII. and all the Bishops of his obedience are therefore clearly deposed 
and anathematized by that ove, holy, universal and apostolic Church which we 
confess in the Creed. 


The sooner there comes, East and West, a perfect Restoration of all the 
do¢trine, discipline, rite, and custom of the Six World Councils, and all those of 
the Ante-Nicene period, and the sooner there comes with it a Seventh Ecumen- 
ical Synod to depose him and all his so-called Bishops and to put sound men 
into their places, the better for the whole Church and for the salvation of the 
more than 200,000,000 of souls whom he and his fellow so-called prelates are 
leading down to the hopeless death of the idolater. 


Though the Greek Church to-day is idolatrous, it is a remarkable fact that 
it denies both the baptism and the orders of Rome. Oh! that it would reform 
and restore and obey the Six Synods, to which it still professes allegiance 
nominally, and anathematize the idolatrous conventicle of II. Nicaea which op- 
poses them, and has so long nullified them and does still, and has wrecked 
Church and State, and been their bitter curse, as it was of all the West also till 
the time of the Blessed Reformation in the sixteenth century. 


Events Before the Council. xiii. 
municate, falls back among other things in his reply to him on 


ee Le 

And as the Anglicans in their formularies brand the Roman Communion as 
idolatrous, and, as all admit that by the Decisions of the Six Councils of the 
whole Church, every idolatrous Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon is deposed and 
anathematized, and that the sheep who are in the hands of such wolves must be 
delivered from them and saved, they must therefore, logically, for their part,and, 
so far as they can, with the rest of the Church, depose them and anathematize 
them and put faithful shepherds in their place, or else be eternally damned 
themselves for-their faithlessness and traitorousness to Christ and to His Church. 
But first they must square themselves on the Six Ecumenical Synods, that they 
be not rebuked in return. And common sense teaches that Rome’s reform is 
hopeless. All the passages descriptive of the final fate of the Harlot of the 
Revelations, who is explained by the Holy Ghost to be “thad great city”? 
which in John’s day reigned ‘‘over the Kings of the earth”? (Rev. xvii, 18), 
agree not with her reform but with her utter desolation and depopulation for- 
ever. Read on that Revelations xviii., 1-24, and especially verses 21, 22, and 23. 
In any future union therefore Rome can not be considered. 


Ihave here spoken only of some great heresies and idolatries of Rome 
which are condemned by the VI. Synods of the Universal Church. 


But there are other errors of that kind and of other kinds in which she has 
erred from the way of truth and which make her guilt darker and blacker. 
I find some of them mentioned under Romish Church in the General Index to 
Bingham’s Antiquities, vol. VIII. of the ten volume Oxford edition of A. D. 
1855. Irefer to them here not to approve them all, because there is reason to 
doubt whether some of them are well put, but only to call attention to such of 
them as are certainly faults of Rome, contrary to the New Testament and to the 
Six Synods of the Christian World. See there. We must remember that 
Rome to-day is worse than she was at the time of the Reformation. For at her 
Vatican Council in A. D. 1870 she committed herself definitely and irrevocably 
and forever against the Sixth Ecumenical Council, of A. D. 680, by rejecting 
its condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, as in others of her pseudo-Ecu- 
menical Conventicles, held after A. D. 680, she had committed herself against the 
Third Ecumenical Council by reje@ting its prohibitions of 27α»ι- Worship 
(Ανθρωπολατρεία), and of Cannibalism (Av@pwrogayia) on the Eucharist. So that 
Rome is irreformable, as we are taught in Rey. xvii. and xviii., and by the facts 
of the last twelve centuries. And the man who proposes union with the Harlot 
is a traitor by that very fact to Christ and to his Church, and should be at once 
deposed if a cleric, and excommunicated if alaic. The Church of England 
should have a Catechism of the Six World Councils, and of all Ante-Nicene 
Doétrine, Discipline,and Rite, where they have not spoken, that even its plainest 
people may know exa¢tly what that Universal Church which Christ commands 
us to hear, if we would not be deemed as a heathen man and a publican, has 
said, and what has been held always, everywhere and by all. To-day its people 
know not these things, but are at the mercy of every hobby rider who brings 


xliv. Events Before the Council. 

ον NE eh a a Ὑ αν σι εχ Ξθ πη 
the fact that he ‘‘had conferred with the brethren of the [Christian] 
world ’ (a), that is, he meant he knew they would not excommuni=. 
cate him, no matter what the Bishop of Rome and some others 
with him might think. And therefore, he adds, ‘‘/ am not scared at 
what ἐς threatened’’ (ὁ). 


For other attempts of Bishops of Rome to arrogate to themselves. 
and their see the authority of the whole Episcopate, and their defeat 
and failure, see Guettées Papacy, and Barrow on the Pope's Su- 
premacy. But, when the whole Church spoke in the First Ecu- 
menical Council, held A. D 325. at Nicaea, the Proconsular Asia 
Fourteenthdayite Churches obeyed, and if any of their people re- 
fused, he was refused communion by all (¢). So we see that when 
Victor, the fallible Roman successor of poor fallible Peter, spoke, the 
Bishops of Proconsular Asia withstood him to his face, as Paul had 
withstood his erring Feliow-Apostle Peter at Antioch (Galatians 11., 
11-21). And the great bulk of the Bishops of the Universal 
Church, though differing from them on a merely local custom, 
backed up the Proconsular Asiatics in that position. But when that 
Church which Christ commands us to hear unless we would be re- 
garded ‘‘as a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. EVili.,, 17); 
spoke through its whole Apostolate at Nicaea, all obeyed. For 
Peter had never been the whole Apostolate, nor could he alone 
speak for it all. It was the whole Apostolate which spake in the 
gathering at Jerusalem in Acts xv. Peter’s voice was only one 
among all. He was merely first among his equals in the ruling 
body of the Church where each Apostle has the same promise of 
bo Uy Oe eee 


in heresies contrary to the Six Synods, or of every Miss Nancy of an effeminate. 
Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, who never should have been admitted to the min- 
istry, and who changes the primitive table to a Jewish or pagan altar, and puts 
on it a tabernacle,contrary to his own rubrics, for the reservation of what Roman- 
ists term the Host, and forits worship, and contrary to hisown Homily against 
Perilof Idolatry, puts on his altar, in the windows, or elsewhere in the Church, 
idols pictured or graven, which things provoke the jealous God to jealousy, and 
jure women into idolatry. 

(a). Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist., Book V., Chap. 24, Greek, ἐγὼ οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ... 


συμβεβληκὼς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀδελφοῖς... οὐ πτύρομαι ἐπὶ τοὶς καταπλησσομένοις. 
(ὁ). See the note last above. 


(c). The Quartodecimans, that is Fourteenthdayites, are branded as her- 
etics in Canon VII. of the Second Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 351. 


Events Before the Council. xiv. 


guiding by the Holy Ghost in the great work of teaching the Church 
and the world (Matt. xxviii., 19, 20; John xiv., 16,17). Anicetus, 
Victor’s predecessor in the see of Rome, about 157-161, differed from 
St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, on that same matter of the Paschal 
day, and when neither could persuade the other they communed in 
the Eucharist and separated as brethren (4). So Cyprian and am 
African Council of A. D. 254 (see Cyprian’s Epistle 67) supported 
the Spanish Christians in their opposition to Stephen, Bishop of 
Rome, in the matter of Basilides and Martialis. So in instances too 
many to be here recited, the Episcopate of the Universal Church 
has acted when any Bishop of Rome has assumed to himself to be 
lord and master of his Fellow-Bishops, and las presumed to exercise 
sole jurisdiction outside of Italy. So the Fifth Ecumenical Council 
in A. D. 553 censured the unstable and tricky Vigilius, for lack of 
duty in a very important matter affecting fundamental faith, the 
Three Chapters; and the Sixth in A. D. 680 anathematized his suc- 
cessor, Honorius, as an instrument of the Devil and a Monothelite 
heretic: see its Definition and its Acts. And, as though God 
would warn us against the usurpation by the Bishop of Rome of the 
authority of the Apostolate of the whole Church, Scripture tells us 
more of his fallibility than it does of that of all the rest of the 
Apostles put together. For he went so far, as Christ warned him 
that he would, as to deny him thrice in a few hours of one night (4), 
and he even went so far as to deny that he was one of his disciples, 
(c), which, of course, means a denial of the faith, a complete apos- 
tasy from it; and he even went further and swore with an oath 
that he did not even know the man (@), thus adding perjury to utter 
apostasy, and then, when accused again, he even began to curse and 
to swear (4). And afterwards at Antioch he was rebuked for such. 


(a). Eusebius’ Zccl. Hist., Book V., Chapter 24. Irenaeus relates the fact 
above. 

(δ). Matt. xxvi., 34, 35; Mark xiv., 30, 31; Luke xxii., 31-35; John xiii., 38. 

(c). John xviii., 17; compare Matt. xxvi., 69, 70; Mark xiv., 66, 67, 68, and 
Luke xxii., 56, 57. 

(7). Matt. xxvi., 71, 72; compare Mark xiv., 68, 69, 70; Luke xxii., 58, and 
John xviii., 25. 

(e). Matt. xxvi., 73, 74, 75; Mark xiv., 70, 71, 72; Luke xxii., 59, 60, 61. 
and John xviii, 26, 27. Sections 136 and 144 in Robinson’s Harmony of the 


xvi. Events Before the Councit. 


recreancy to duty as amounted to fallibility certainly, aye to tem- 
porary apostasy on a fundamental article of faith, the freedom of the 
Gentile, ave and the Jewish Christian also from obedience to the law 
of Moses (a), a point infallibly decided by the assembled Apostolate 


Gospels give these texts in their places in parallel columns: see there for all 
the references above in these notes. 


(a). Acts x., and xi., I-19; Acts xv., I-32; Rom. vi., 14, 15; Heb. viii., 13. 
Christ’s New Covenant, that is New Testament, came of force the moment he 
died (Heb. ix., 15, 16, 17), when the Old was ado/lished and passed away forever 
(II. Cor. iii., 13, and Heb. viii., 13). The tables of that Covenant were the Ten 
Commandments, Heb. ix., 4: compare Deut. x., 1-6; I. Kings vili.,g. Hence 
they are called the Tables of the Covenant, Heb. ix., 4; compare Exod. xxxiv., 
I, 28; xxxi., 18;xxxii., 16; I. Kings viii., 9, 21; Exod. xxxiv., 28, 29; Deut. iv., 
13; Deut. ix., 9, 11, 15. All the moral law parts in them are binding on us, not 
because they were in the Ten Commandments, which were given to the 
Israelites, not to us, but because they are all enacted expressly or impliedly 
in the New and Better Covenant of Christ (Heb. viii,, 13; vii., 22; viii., 6). 
Ry moral law parts I mean such as the enlighted and sanctified common sense 
ofmen in all ages has deemed binding,such, for instance, asthe law which forbids 
theft, the law which forbids more gods than one, the law which forbids image 
worship, the law which forbids adultery, the law which forbids murder, etc. 
The parts of the ten commandments which are posztive laws as contradistin- 
guished from moral, are the prohibitions of even making a graven image, or a 
likeness, that is a picture, and the keeping of the seventh day, or any other par- 
ticular day; for such things are not moral laws, for God who prohibited in the 
Law in Exod. xx., 4, the making of statues and pictures, ordered two statues, 
the cherubs, to be put over the mercy seat in the holy of holies into which the 
high priest alone could enter, and the embroidered cherubs on the vail which 
separated the holy place from the most holy (Exod. xxvi., 31, xxxvi., 35); and 
the outer curtains had cherubs on them, but whether on the inside or outside 
does not appear from any thing Ihaveseen. Atany rate noneofthe people ever 
saw the ark-cherubs or the inner curtain which separated the holy place from 
the most holy. And it is not clear that they ever saw the cherubs on the outer 
vails; but it is clear that they were forbidden to worship them. The meaning 
of God’s allowing statuary and embroidered figures in one structure only, 
where the people might not see them, and the forbidding them else- 
where, was to teach them that sculpture and painting are not in them- 
selves sinful, but are to be forbidden in places of worship where they 
may be seen by the people, lest they begin to worship them relatively 
as the Israelites did the calf in the Wilderness, and the calves at Bethel 
and at Dan. Hence we see that outside of the temple, in which God 
made exceptions to his prohibition of statuary and embroidered figures, the 
Jews have ever regarded the prohibition as of force, for no statue or likeness of 
anything in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under 


Events Before the Council. xIvil. 


against Peter’s dissembling to please heretical Jewish Christians, 
whose Legalistic errors were condemned in that Council (4). Read 
the whole story in Galatians ii., 11-21, in the words of the inspired 
Paul: ‘‘When Peter was come to Antioch, 7 withstood him to the face, 
because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, 
he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, 
and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Bar- 
nabas also was carried away with thetr dissitmulation (6). But when 
7 saw that they walked not uprighily according to the truth of the Gospel, 
7 said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the 
manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the 
Gentiles to live as do the Jews,’’ etc. (Galat 11., 11-15). The Mosaic 
Law had been abolished at Christ’s death and the Gospel had taken 


the earth (Exod. xx., 4), has ever been allowed in their synagogues. And this 
same rule, as has been so ably shown by Tyler in his work on Image Worshi’ 
was the feeling and custom of the primitive Church. Witness the prohibitio 
of pictures in Church by the Council of Elvira in Spain about A. D. 305-309, in 
its Canon XXXVI., and the action of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cy- 
prus A. D. 367-403, in tearing up a veil in a Church in Anablatha in Palestine be- 
cause it had on it an image, that is a painting representing Christ or some other 
saint: See pages 163 to 167 of that work of Tyler. 


Another positive law, as distinguished from a moral law, is the observance 
of the seventh day of the week, as has been said, for it is not clear that any one 
day is holier than another. Such positive laws are not re-enacted in the New 
Testament expressly or impliedly. Hence they are not binding on us of Gentile 
blood. Until Christ came we were under the last covenant given to universal 
humanity, that is that of Noah (Gen. ix., 8-18). The seventh day passed 
away with his death (Heb. ix., 15-18). Wehave no law in the New Testament 
to keep the first day of the week, but we have Apostolic example for it, 
which amounts to the same thing. See Acts xx., 7, and I. Cor. xvi., 2. ‘‘ The 
Lord’s Day’’ in Rev. i., 10, has always been understood by Christian writers 
from the first to mean the First Day. 

(a). Acts xv., I-32. 

(6). Greek, αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει, literally ‘‘ with their hypocrisy.” Pau’ 
therefore, speaking by the Holy Ghost, condemns Peter’s conduct here as ;y- 
pocrisy, and himself of course as a hypocrite. In one respect, that is in the de- 
‘iberateness and persistency of his sin, Peter’s conduct here was worse than his 
conduct in the Gospels. There his triple denial was inspired by sudden and 
powerful fear for his own life. Here that motive was not so powerful, and his 
fall into Legalistic Anti-Christian heresy was more calm and deliberate, and his 
repentance seems to have come more slowly. 


ΧΙνΠ]. Events Before the Council. 

πα νυν Eee 
its place. ‘The old Covenant had lost all authority, and the New 
and better Covenant had superseded it (2). The Council of Jeru- 
salem, where Peter was present and on the right side (6), had so 
decided, and yet after that Holy-Ghost-inspired decree Peter falls 
away from the faith again, and by example teaches the heresy, so 
dear to some of the Jewish heretical brethren, for which they 
are censured in the New Testament, that the Law of Moses with its 
meats and drinks is still binding; and that too after God had taught 
him the contrary do¢trine in a vision and verified it against the Cir- 
cumcisers and Legalists in the case of Cornelius, who contended with 
him for their heresy when he returned to Jerusalem, as they did at 
Antioch against Paul and Barnabas (c). . And so, in the¥same 
Chapter ii. of Galatians, Paul tells Peter that no man can be justified 
by that Law of Moses which Peter. to please the heretical Jews, 
pretended to obey, calls his conduct a 9272, and a building up again 
the things of an effete Judaism which they had destroyed by their 
preaching of Christ, and a transgression: see Galat. i1:, 15-21.) (Petes 
therefore was decidedly fallible, as his successors, Vigilius (4), and 
Honorius (¢) were. In the case of these two the Universal Church 
has settled the matter forever in the Fifth Ecumenical Council and 
the Sixth, so that a man who asserts Papal Infallibility is by that 
very fact branded as a heretic. For. after the decision of the Sixth 
Ecumenical Synod on Honorius. the matter has been removed from 
disputable questions. We can no more discuss that question with a 
heretic than we can the fallibility and justness of the condemnation 
of Arius by the First World-Synod, with an Arian; or the condem- 
nation of Macedonius by the Second Synod, or the con- 


es 
(a). See note a, page xlvi. 
(6). Adéts xv., 7-12, and 14-18, 
(c). Acts xi, 1-19; Acts xv, I-32. 


(4). See proofs of his erring course in Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy un- 
der his name in the Index, in the Abbé Guettée’s work on the Papacy, English 
translation, Index under Vigi/ius, and the article on him in Smith and Wace’s 
Diétionary of Christian Biography. 


(6). See proofs of his heresy in Barrow on the Pope’s Supremacy, in the 
Abbé Guettée’s work on the Papacy, English translation, Index under Honorius, 
and Barmby’s article on Honorius in Smith and Wace’s Dittionary of Christian 
Biography. 


Events Before the Council. li, 


demnation of Nestorius by the Third, or that of Eutyches 
by the Fourth, or that of Origen, and Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, and the Three Chapters by the Fifth. For the very 
moment that we regard such decisions as debatable we land in 
ecclesiastical and doctrinal anarchy. So we land in the same thing 
if we admit any other Synod as sound or Ecumenical ifit contradi@s 
any of their decisions on do¢trine, discipline, or rite: instances of 
such contradicting Synods are the Image-Worshipping and Creature- 
Invoking, and Real Presence Council of A. D.-787 at Nicaea which 
idolaters call Ecumenical, which on all those points opposes the 
Third Ecumenical Synod; the Vatican Council of A. D. 1870, which 
contradicts, on Honorius, the Sixth; and all the other so-called Ecu- 
menical Councils which have been held in the East or West since 
A. D. 680. For he who receives any of them, by that very fact 
rejects Ephesus, or some other of the Six World Councils, and, if he 
be a cleric, subjects himself to deposition, and if a laic to anathema, 
according to their Decisions. 


The Third Ecumenical Council therefore did not accept Celes- 
' tine’s opinion alone as settling the question of the heresies of 
Nestorius. They accepted the assents of all the Bishops of the 
Universal Church, and on the basis of a fair trial in which those 
assents were pronounced they deposed Nestorius. 


And what is very important, in their Canon VIII. they decided 
against Celestine’s claim to Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa, and for 
Carthage’s contention and that of the 217 Bishops of the North 
African Synod which had rejected it. 


Some documents alleged to have been delivered as Sermons at 
Constantinople A. D. 429, and to be productions of Proclus, are 
made much of by Garnier the Jesuit in his Marius Mercator, and by 
John Mason Neale, the Romanizer and Mariolater and traitor to his 
own Communion and to the Six Ecumenical Synods: see his Zastern 
Church, Alexandria, Vol. I., 239-243. For such men, moved by 
the perverted and false statements of Romanists and by their own 
creature-worshipping tendencies and crimes against the infallible 
law of Christ that God alone is to be worshipped, which shall judge 
us all at the last day (Matt. iv., 10; Luke iv., 8, and John xii., 48), 
are prone to lug in somewhere and to attribute to some of 
the Orthodox something that approaches in some or in any 


iE, Events Before the Council. 


way to their worship of the Virgin. But those documents are 
spurious. None of them is earlier than the sixth century. They 
will be spoken of more at length in the volume of the Fovematter to 
Ephesus, where they are Documents 57, 58 and 59. I have room 
only to say that though Socrates and Evagrius both mention 
Proclus, neither of them mentions his preaching any sermon on the 
Virgin or taking any very prominent part in the Nestorian contro- 
versy. Neither Theodoret nor Sozomen mention him in their 
Church Histories. On pages 550, 551, below, I have referred to the 
fact that Garnier’s headings, or those in tome 48 of Migne’s 
Patrologia Latina, in which it is said that some of Nestorius’ Ser- 
mons were preached against Proclus, are mere late things and of no 
historic value at all: and that in Galland’s edition the headings are 
not the same as in Garniex’s. The fact is that Garnier being a 
Romanist, and therefore a Mariolater, and accustomed to the utterly 
false notion that Ephesus favored the worship of Mary, and never- 
theless finding nothing in the original Acts and genuine documents to 
base that slander on, welcomes these spurious produc¢tions, which are 
falsely alleged to be Proclus’, and then makes up headings to Nes- 
torius’ Sermons, some of which he supposes without any proof to be 
against Proclus, and so asserts in those headings. 


The Emperors had summoned the Metropolitans of the Chris- 
tian world to choose each some of his Bishops and to come to Ephe- 
sus. As has been said, the day appointed for the opening was 
Pentecost, our Whitsunday, June 7, A. D. 431. Nestorius with six- 
teen Bishops of his party, were among the first to arrive. And he 
came panoplied in the friendship and the military forces of Count 
Candidian, the Emperor Theodosius the Second’s representative. 
Cyril came about June 2 with about fifty of his suffragans. Juvenal 
of Jerusalem and Flavian of Philippi came with some of their prel- 
ates. Memnon of Ephesus was on hand with about forty of his 
suffragans. John of Antioch had not come, but with Metropolitans 
and Bishops was on his way. ‘The Synod waited for him and them 
fifteen days after the time set by the Emperor. What modern Synod 
would wait solong? I give Hefele’s brief summary here on John’s 
delay, on pages 44, 45 of Vol. III. of the English translation of his 
History of the Church Councils ; 


‘There was still wanting one of the superior metropolitans 


Events Before the Council. li. 

(patriarchs), namely, John of Antioch. His Bishops, he said, could 
not leave their dioceses before Renovation Sunday (Dominica in 
Albis), and then it would take them twelve days to travel to An- 
tioch, and from thence to Ephesus thirty-nine, so that they could 
not arrive until some days after Pentecost. At last, (just about 
Pentecost), John came into the neighborhood of Ephesus, and sent 
to Cyril a letter, which is still extant, full of friendliness, setting 
forth that the length of the road and the death of several of their horses 
had delayed the journey, but that nevertheless he was close at 
hand, and would appear at Ephesus in five or six days. In spite of 
this they waited sixteen days; and then two of the metropolitans of 
the patriarchate of Antioch, Alexander of Apamea and Alexander 
of Hierapolis, came and repeatedly declared that ‘John had bid them 
say that they were no longer to defer the opening of the Synod on his 
account, but in case it should be necessary for him to delay longer, they 
were to do what was to be done.’ From this they inferred that the 
Patriarch John was intending to avoid being personally present at 
the condemnation of his former priest and friend Nestorius. Cyril 
and his friends now decided therefore on the immediate opening of 
the Synod, and assembled for that purpose on the 28th day of the 
Egyptian month Payni (June 22), 431, in the Cathedral of Ephesus’’ 
(2). ‘The rest is told in the Acts and in the notes in this work on 
the Council. 


We may be well assured from what we know of St. Cyril that 
he, with the better informed men of the Orthodox, would wisely 
utilize the fifteen days of waiting to instruct and fortify the less 
scholarly among them not only on the great themes of the Inman, 
Man-Worship, and the Eucharist, but on all points contested by 
Nestorius in his Twenty Blasphemies, for all which he was con- 
demned and deposed in Act I. of the Synod (4). Cyril had with 
him his two Epistles which were destined to be formulated as Ecu- 
menically approved explanations of the Nicene Creed and also of all 
the points involved in the Nestorian Controversy, and his still fuller 
Five Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. He would 


(a). Hefele, in the notes on the above, gives the references to the original 
sources for his statements. 


(ὁ). They are found on pages 449-479 below. 


iy Events Before the Council. 


naturally circulate them among his fellow prelates to their enlight- 
enment. Besides we have still a brief but excellent, ‘‘ Explanation 
of the Twelve Chapters spoken in Ephesus by Cyril, Archbishop of 
Alexandria, the Holy Synod having requested him to set forth a clearer 
explanation of them to them’ (a). Whether this was said in the long wait 
before the First Act or between some of the after Acts, or after them 
all, we cannot say. At any rate the forecited works were abundant 
to profit all and to set forth entire Orthodoxy on the points involved. 

On pages 30-32 below, Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, in 
stating and opening the business of the Council, makes no mention 
of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius’ teachers, 
but confines his statement of the causes of the difficulty to Nestorius 
and his heretical Sermons and writings. Withthem and their refuta- 
tions by Cyril the Council deals. Later on in the period after the Third 
Council, Cyril becomes aware of the fact that Diodore’s and Theodore’s 
teachings had corrupted not only Nestorius but more or less the 
great bulk of the Episcopate of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and he 
therefore assails and exposes their errors. I judge that the errors 
were stated most fully by Theodore. For in the Fifth Hcumenical 
Synod, which condemned the relics of Nestorianism, and its founders, 
he is named in its Anathemas IV., V., VI., XII., XIII., and XIV., 
and is anathematized, and there is no mention of Diodore in them. 
But their errors are condemned in the Definition of the Fifth Synod 
and in its Anathemas, and in its approval of all that had been done 
at Ephesus. Fragments of Cyril’s writings against Diodore and 
‘Theodore are found, translated into English, in Pusey’s S. Cyril of 
Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 320—362. 
Most of Diodore’s and Theodore’s writings are lost. 


(a). They are found on pages 240-258 of vol. vi. of the Greek of P. EH. 
Pusey’s edition of Cyril’s works. 


List of Donors to the Publishing Fund. lili, 


LIST OF DONORS TO THE FUND TO PUBLISH THE VI. 
ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, WHO HAVE HELPED 
TO PUBLISH THIS VOLUME. 


I have again to record my heartfelt gratitude to those patrons 
of Christian lore, by whose kind and invaluable assistance this work 
has been printed and electrotyped and published. I had not the 
‘means necessary to doit. They came tothe help not only of my- 
self but, of what is vastly greater, of Christ speaking through His 
Universal Church, that these inestimably precious and indisputably 
authoritative utterances of it might be made known to clergy and 
people. May He most richly reward them in both worlds. For 
what is the use of the Church defining and deciding on matters of 
salvation and of order, if those Definitions and Decisions are to be 
locked up in dead languages forever ? 

I ought to add here in justice to the givers to the Fund that for 
all opinions expressed in the notes on this work I alone am respon- 
sible. As the donors belong mainly to the different parties in the 
Anglican Communion, some of them may differ from some of them 
as they differ from each other.’ 

The following is the list of donors to the Fund to Publish the 
Six Ecumenical Councils, on this Volume: made up this 12 mo. 1, 
1894: 


ΕΝ 20 eee ee OE ae ee eee eee eee eS -$1,260 00 
BISHOPS. 
RIGHT REV. HENRY CODMAN POTTER, Ὁ. D., L. L. D., Bishop of 
Ls fey ts | ak a SN ae LI Pe Ξε ee ee ee OES 
RIGHT REV. ABRAM NEWKIRK LITTLEJOHNN, Ὁ. D., L. L. D., 
Bicshopiot Lome. Island 2232-220 ππΠπππΦπ'''έΞΕ 5." 20 00 


RIGHT REv. OZI W. WHITAKER, D. D., Bishop of Pennsylvania 10 00 


RicuY REV. WILLIAM C. DOANE, D. D., L: 1. D:;. Bishop of 
OVARY ace se “τσ ee ee τ ΞΞΕΘ ΘΟΕ 10 00 


RicHtT Rkv. PHILLIPS BROOKS, ἢ. D., Bishop of Massachusetts. 10 00 


liv. List of Donors to the Publishing Fund. 


RicHt Rev. THOMAS F. GAILOR, Ὁ. D., Assistant Bishop of 
Tennessee. Ὁ τορι. eee 


Ricut REv. DANIEL 5. TUTTLE, Ὁ. D., Bishop of Missouri--_-- 


Ricut REv. ALEXANDER C. GARRETT, Ὁ. D., L. L. D., Bishop 
of Northern Tlexas 22 J ee 


RicHt Rev. THOMAS U. DUDLEY, D.D., D.C. L., Bishop of 

Kentucky --.------------------------------------------------ 
Ricut REv. WM. F. NICHOLS, Ὁ. D., Bishop of California------- 
Ricut REv. BOYD VINCENT, D. D., Assistant Bishop of Southern 


Ricut REv. EDWIN G. WEED, S. T. D., Bishop of Florida -------- 
Ricut Rev. ELLISON CAPERS, Ὁ. D., Ass’t Bishop of South Caro- 


RIGHT REV. WM. E. McLAREN, D. D., D.C. L., Bishop of Chicago- 
Ricut REv. THOMAS A. JAGGAR, D. D., Bishop of Southern Ohio- 


Ricut θῖν. HENRY B. WHIPPLE, D. D., L. L. D., Bishop of Min- 
FASE aD a aah ae a ee el ΟΞ ΘΘΘΘΕΕΞΞΞΙΞ 


RIGHT REv. JOHN F. SPALDING, D. D., Bishop of Colorado------ 
RicuHt REv. WILLIAM A. LEONARD, D. D., Bishop of Ohio------ 


PRESBYTERS. 


REV. MORGAN DIX, Ὁ D., D: C..L., New York __---_ = eee 
REv. JOHN W. BROWN, Ὁ. D., New York------------------------ 
Ruv. CHARLES F. HOFFMAN, ἢ: D., L. L. D:, New νοῦ 
Rey. PHILIP ἃ ἘΝ BROWN, New ‘Work. -_....)2 > σὰ 
REv. DAVID H. GREER, Ὁ. D., New York Wi ee 
Reve WM: R: HUNTINGTON, Ὁ D:, D.C. L., Néw Yorko eae 
REv. JAMES MULCHAHEY, Ὁ. D., New York-------------------- 
RrEv. ARTHUR BROOKS, D. D., New York ------=------==------=-= 
Rey ISAAC Ἡ TULTLE Ὁ D.New Notk--2-2) >) eee 
Riv. HENRY VY. SATTERLEE,. D. D: New ,_Yotk----2-2> oe 
Rev. W. ALLEN JOHNSON, Middletown, Conn, ------------------ 
Rrv. E. W. DONALD, Ὁ. D., Boston, Mass. ----------------------- 
Rev. ARTHUR Ὁ KIMBER, S. T. D., New York---..-----—-=-----= 
μὴν OCTAVIUS APPLEGATE, Jr., Ellenville, N. Y.------------- 
REV. EDWARD A. BRADLEY, D. D., New York----------------_- 
Rev. G. W. DUMBELL, D. D., Castleton, N. Y.--------------—----= 
REv. WM. ΒΕ. ESHER, Jersey City, N. J.------------------------ -- 


Rev. E. R. KNOWLES, L. I. D., Worcester, -Miass.=2-- ---_-----==— 


$10 


Io 


naan onan wm 


oo: 


8 8 8 


Notes on Ephesus. lv. 


OF THE LAITY. 


ΤΕ 5. J; GOODWIN, Eso., New Works: _-.222——- 2-2-2 Ὅτ τὲ $5000 
fons PRANMCIS G. DUPONT, Wilmington, Del, ~~~  00ῷῦϑὃ 8.0. τ 2500 
Paths BEM MING, Eso. Jersey City, Ny 7: --- τ ῦ 25. see) ome 
EFFINGHAM H. NICHOLS, Eso., New Vork-__--_------~-----_-- 10 00 
Mr. SOLON J. VLASTO απὸ WIFE, New York-----------------_-- 10 00 
MAGS Κ͵ΑΤΤ INGMIRE, Néw Vork. 22422222524 oe eee 5 00 
Precio nloal Bik: jersey City, ΝΟ 222202 - 0 ae 5 00 
Pits ΒΕ SON, \Brooklysl23 21 2 J. τ ey Ee ee 5 00 
GEN BRENAN, Jersey City, Necjec.e2se Uo ee 5 00 
Peer CELIA LD, Brooklyn, Ν, νὼ: 352-32 τὐ ee ἸΞι-- I 00. 


ADDITIONAL NAMES. 
RIGHT REV. CORTLANDT WHITEHEAD, Bishop of Pittsburg, Pa.. $1000 


REVACHAUNCEY B. BREWSTER; Brooklyn, N. Κι... 1 ἰὸς 20 00 
ewe THOMAS ΝΜ: PE TERS..D: Ὁ νον Verk 222-20. oa ας: ΤΟ 00 
moe PODS So. -OSBbORNE, Newark, IN. 7. ἘΞ 5 τ - -Θοῖ τ - 10 00 
ewe Gy BRODER 1 St: Lous, Mo:2222 -ὕὉ τὺὺ ee ae Lee 5 00 
fv ΓΕΑ ΠΌΘΕΝ, Bedford, IN. “Vics. s2-2 ss 25+ es 5 00 


TEXT LEAPS. 


On the following pages the text is separated by a long note, so 
that it must be read by a leap from page to page as below noted to 
preserve the consecution: 

From page 13 leap to page 16. 
From page 19 leap to page 21. 
From page 120 leap to page 129. 


LOCATION AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MOST IM- 
PORTANT NOTES ON EPHESUS. 


Much of the matter in these notes is drawn from the Acts of the 
Third World Council and from the other World Councils, and from 
the Orthodox Cyril and his teacher and predecessor in the see of 
Alexandria, Athanasius, and from Cyril’s opponent, Nestorius, and 
from the originators of his heresy, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, and from Nestorius’ partisans, Theodoret, Bishop of 
Cyrus, Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, Eutherius of Tyana, and from 
others. Such material has an interest of itself as bearing on the 
Council and serving to explain many things in it, independent of the 
translator’s work of Englishing many of the passages cited. 


ἵν]. Notes on Ephesus. 


Perhaps he should explain that note 183, pages 79-128, and 
note 606, pages 240-313, are Dissertations rather than notes. But 
he has deemed them so important and so necessary in these days 
when the blessed decisions of the Holy Ghost at Ephesus are so 
little known, and as a consequence so much misrepresented and so 
much maligned, that he has connected them with those places in the 
Ecumenically approved documents to which they belong, that every 
man may see the closeness of their co-linking. The annotator has 
endeavored to make them fuller and clearer than any other modern 
production on the difference between Cyril and Nestorius, that is be- 
tween the Orthodoxy defined by the Third Ecumenical Synod on 
the one hand, and the heresies of the heresiarch and of his partisans 
on the other, on the great themes of Man-Worship, that is of Crea- 
ture-Worship, and of the Eucharist. On those topics the Holy 
Spirit guided the Universal Church at Ephesus to decide infallibly, 
once for all, and its decisions are an unstormable rampart against all 
the assaults of later errors. ‘The notes, in order to profit, should be 
read in connection with the places in the text to which they pertain 
and are attached. And the two Dissertation notes 183 and 606, not 
because of the translator, but because of the quotations from the 
Ecumenical Councils, and from their teachers Athanasius and Cyril 
in them, will live and do good for centuries to come, as the annota- 
tor hopes that all will, He here mentions some of the longer notes, 
their subjects, and their location; and then, below, the ‘‘ Location 
of Notes which do not begin on the Page to which they belong.’’ They 
are, for the most part, displaced by the longer notes, some of which 
run over many pages: 


Begins on Ends on 
Note No. Page. Page. Its Subject. 


156 61 69 The difference between Cyril’s and the 
Church’s doctrine of the Substance 
Union, and Nestorius’ heresy of Re/- 
ative Union, which includes his se- 
quence of Relative Worship of 
Christ’s humanity, that is, the wor- 
ship of a creature. 

173 74 76 Economic Appropriation: it guards, ac- 
cording to St. Athanasius and St.Cyril, 
against worshipping a creature, the 
sin of the heathen. 


Note Nv. 


183 


ω 
(os) 


& 


502 


520 


533 


580 


599 
606 


679 


Begins on 
Page. 


79 


204 


210 


221 


229 
240 


332 


Notes on Ephesus. Ivii. 


Ends on 
Page. 


128 


172 


178 


201 


208 


212 


225 


238 
313 


362 


“Its S: wbject. 


This long note is in fact a Dissertation on 
the differences between Cyril and 
the Third Ecumenical Council on the 
one hand, and Nestorius and his 
partisans and other heretics on the 
other, as to worshipping Christ’s hu- 
manity. Some of these quotations 
are gathered in it, translated, and set 
in contrast for the first time, from the 
original. 

The Tradition of the Universal Church; 
some parts of it. 

Deadly nature of Nestorius’ denial of the 
Inman, his worship of a mere crea- 
ture, ete. 

Stand of the great Diocesan Sees on the 
Nestorian Controversy. 

Cyril’s Longer Epistle to Nestorius, its 
authority; its text. 


The Protest of Cyril and his Synod against 
Nestorius and his heresy of creature- 
worship, etc.; the Protest of the Re- 
formers against Rome’s creature-wor- 
ship, etc. 


Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ’s 
humanity. 
The Eucharist an Unbloody Service. 


The do¢trine of St. Cyril and of the Third 
Council on the Eucharist. Nestorius’ 
heresies on it. 


It is on Cyril’s Anathema VIII.; in which 
he curses the worship of Christ’s 
separate humanity. Nestorius’ Rel- 
ative Worship of Christ’s humanity; 
Cyril and the Church’s condemnation 
of it. Kenrick’s absolute worship of 
Christ’s humanity, and his defence of 
the worship of the Sacred Heart of 
Christ; remarks on Kenrick’s crea- 
ture worship. The Monophysite 
worship of Christ’s humanity. The 
Church doé¢trine on that whole topic. 
Habib the Martyr’s testimony. 


1ν111. Notes on Ephesus. 


Note 688, to page 346. It begins on page 363, aud endson page 406. [ἰ is on 
Cyril’s Anathema X., which is on Christ’s High Priestly and Mediatorial 
Work. God the Word, and no creature our Mediator. The Son is our 
Sole Advocate and Intercessor in Heaven. Cyril for it. The doctrine 
blurred in later forms of Liturgies; was maintained in the Alexandrian 
Church before Cyril; is Scriptural; Augustine on; Clement of Alexandria 
for it; Julius Africanus for it; St. Athanasius for it; St. Cyril for it; New- 
man’s inexact statements on it; Stancari, or Stancaoro and Osiander on; 
Theodoret against it; St. Cyril for it; Augustine on it; Leo I. of Rome on; 
too much lost sight of in the Middle Ages, owing to invocation of saints; 
the English and other Reformers restore it; the Second Fart of the Hom- 
tly of the Church of England Concerning Prayer for it. The Homily of 
the Church of England on the Nativity for it; Article XX XI. for the sole- 
ness ‘ of the one Oblation of Christ finished on the Cross.’’ Christ’s one 
sacrifice absolutely propitiatory; the Eucharistic propitiatory only ve/a- 
tively to that; Christ’s intercessory work prerogative to the Son; it can- 
not be shared by Saints. How Cyril’s Anathema VIII. and X. and 
Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod against the worship of Christ’s human- 
ity and against those who deny that God the Word is our Mediator, are 
maintained in professing Christendom. in the Greek Church; in the 
Latin; among the Monophysites; among the Nestorians. in the Reformed 
Communions; among the Socinians; Stancaro on; Osiander the Lutheran 
against him; Francis David, Budnzeus and Socinus and other Anti-Trin- 
itarians on. Difference between the Nestorian and the Socinian worship 
of Chrisit’s humanity; in England and America most Anti-Trinitarians 
now renounce it altogether; Nestorian language of Peter Lombard on 
Christ’s Mediatorship; some Lutheran documents Man-worshipping; 
Lutheran heresy and form of Communication of the Properties of Christ’s 
Divinity to his humanity, Cyril against that error; acts of relative 
worship given by Nestorius or his partisans to Christ’s humanity. Cyril 
condemns such a¢ts as insulting to God, and makes them all prerogative 
to Him; Schwenkfelder’s heresy on; Spread of Saint worship in the An- 
glican Communion; Newman’s wicked and dishonorable course on; 
Keble, Pusey and Neale also against Cyril and Ephesus, scoundrelism of 
Blunt; where Cyril explains his Anathema X. 

Note 694, to page 356. It is on pages 409-413. Economic Appropriation. 

Note 759, page 424-428. On a Passage of Felix of Rome. 

Note 763, to page 424. Page 428-433. On a Passage of Felix of Rome. 

Note 949, to page 461. Pages 461-463. Relative Worship of Creatures. 

Note 1007, to page 474. Pages 474-477. Ona Passage of Nestorius on the Eu- 
charist. 

Note 1023, to page 481. Pages 479-483. Metropolitans and Patriarchs. 


Notes on Ephesus. lix. 


LOCATION OF NOTES WHICH DO NOT BEGIN ON THE 
PAGE TO WHICH THEY BELONG. 


Vote. Belongs to. Begins on. Note. Belongs to. Begins on, 
143. Page 54. Page 58. 200. Page 120. Page 128. 
144. Page 57. Page 58. 365. Page I7I. Page 172. 
145. Page 57. Page 59. 389. Page 177. Page 178. 
157 Page 61. Page 69. 492. Page 195. Page 196. 
158, Page 63. Page 69. 503. Page 1098. Page 201. 
159. Page 64. Page 70. 504. Page 198. Page 201. 
160. Page 65. Page 7%. 505. Page 199. Page 201. 
161. Page 67. Page 72. 506. Page 200. Page 202. 
162. Page 70. Page 72. 507. Page 200. Page 202. 
163. Page ΔΙ. Page 72. 508. Page 201. Page 202. 
169. Page 73. Page 74. 509. Page 201. Page 202. 
174. Page 75. Page 76. 514. Page 203. Page 202. 
175. Page 75. Page 76. 519. Page 205. Page 204. 
176. Page 76. Page 78. 520. Page 205. Page 204. 
oy a Page 76. Page 78. 521. Page 206. Page 208. 
178. Page 76. Page 78. 522. Page 207. Page 208. 
179. Page 75. Page 78. 523. Page 207. Page 208. 
180. Page | 77. Page 78. 581. Page 222. Page 225. 
181. Page 77. Page 78. 582. Page 223. Page 225. 
182. Page 78. Page 79. 583. Page 223. Page 226. 
183 Page 85. Page 79. 584. Page 225. Page 227. 
184. Page 86, Page 128. 585. Page 225. Page 227. 
185. Page 93. Page 128. 586. Page 225. Page 228. 
186. Page 96. Page 128. 587. Page 226. Page 228. 
187. Page 98. Page 128. 588. Page 226. Page 228. 
188. Page 99. Page 128. 589. Page 227. Page 228. 
189. Page Ioo. Page 128. 590. Page 227. Page 228. 
190. Page Iol. Page 128. 591. Page 227. Page 228. 
ΙΟΙ. Page 104. Page 128, 596. Page 230. Page 229. 
192. Page 107. Page 128. 597. Page 232. Page 229. 
193. Page IIo. Page 128. 598. Page 233. Page 229. 
194. Page III. Page 128. 599. Page 236. Page 229. 
195. Page III. Page 128. 600. Page 236. Page 238. 
196. Page 116. Page 128. 607. Page 241. Page 312. 
197. Page 116. Page 128. 608. Page 242. Page 313. 
198. Page I17. Page 128. 609. Page 245. Page 313. 
199. Page II9. Page 128. 610. Page 246. Page 313. 


ix: Notes on Ephesus. 

Note. Beiongs to. Begins on. Note. Belongs to. Begins on, 
611 Page 246. Page 313. 656. Page 314. Page 320. 
612. Page 247. Page 313. 657. Page 316. Page 320. 
613. Page 247. Page 313. 658. Page 317. Page 321. 
614. Page 248. Page 313. 659. Page 317. Page 321. 
615. Page 252. Page 313. 660. Page 319. Page 322.. 
616. Page 254. Rage 214; 661. Page 320. Page 323.. 
617. Page 254. Page 313. 662. Page 320. Page 323. 
618. Page 255. Page 313. 663. Page 121: Page 323. 
619. Page 255. Page 313. 664. Page 322. Page 323. 
620. Page 255. Page 313. 665. Page 325. Page 324. 
621 Page 256. Page 712. 680. Page 332. Page 362, Ὁ 
622. Page 258. Page 316. 681. Page 337. Page 362. 
623. Page 258. Page 316. 682. Page 340. Page 363.. 
624. Page 259. Page 316. 683. Page 340. Page 363. 
625. Page 261. Page 316. 684. Page 341. Page 363.. 
626. Page 263. Page 316. 685. Page 344. Page 363. 
627. Page 264. Page 316. 686. Page 344. Page 363. 
628. Page 264. Page 316. 687. Page 346. Page 363. 
629. Page 265. Page 316. 688. Page 346. Page 363.: 
630. Page 265. Page 316. 689. Page 351. Page 406. 
631. Page 268. Page 316. 690. Page 352. Page 406. 
632. Page 269. Page 316. 691. Page 352. Page 407.. 
633. Page 270. Page 316. 692. Page 354. Page 407. 
634. Page 272. Page 316. 693. Page 354. Page 407.. 
635. Page 274. Page 317. 694. Page 356. Page 409.. 
636. Page 274. Page 317. 695. Page 356. Page 413. 
637. Page 275. Page 317. 696. Page 357. Page 413. 
638. Page 276. Page 317. 697. Page 358. Page 413. 
639. Page 281. Page 318. 698. Page 358. Page 413. 
640. Page 285. Page 318. 699, Page 358, Page 413. 
641. Page 287. Page 318. 700. Page 353. Page 413. 
642. Page 288. Page 319. 701. Page 358. Page 4123. 
643. Page 291. Page 319. 702. Page 363. Page 413. 
644. Page 294. Page 319. 703. Page 365. Page 414. 
645. Page 296. Page 319. 704. Page 378. Page 415. 
646. Page 297. Page 319. 705. Page 381. Page 415. 
647. Page 201. Page 319. 706. Page 384. Page 415. 
648. Page 301. Page 319. 707. Page 388. Page 415. 
649. Page 302. Page 319. 708. Page 391. Page 415.. 
650. Page 305. Page 319. 709. Page 394. Page 415. 
651. Page 306. Page 319. 710 Page 395. Page 4I5.. 
652 Page 308. Page 319. Ti; Page 401. Page 415.. 
652. Page 310. Page 319. 712: Page 406. Page 415. 
654. Page 511. Page 3219. 713. Page 406. Page 415-. 
655. Page 312. Page 319. 714. Page 405. Page 4:5. 


768. 


820. 


Belongs to. 
Page 409. 


Page 411. 


Page 412. 


Page 416. 


Page 416. 
Page 417. 
Page 419. 


Page 419. 


Page 423. 


Page 424. 
Page 424. 
Page 424. 
Page 424. 
Page 431. 
Page 43I. 
Page 433. 
Page 438. 
Page 441. 
Page 442. 


Notes on Ephesus. 


Begins on. 


Page 416. 
Page 416. 
Page 416. 
Page 417. 
Page 417. 
Page 418. 
Page 420. 
Page 420. 
Page 424. 
Page 428. 
Page 428. 
Page 428. 
Page 428. 
Page 433. 
Page 433. 
Page 434. 
Page 439. 
Page 442. 
Page 443. 


Note. 


826. 
880. 


932. 
938. 
950. 
951. 
96ο. 
978. 
1008. 
1021. 
1022. 
1023. 
1024. 
1025. 
1031. 
1089. 
1100. 
1124. 


Belongs to. 


Page 443. 
Page 450. 
Page 458. 
Page 460. 
Page 462. 
Page 462. 
Page 466. 
Page 469. 
Page 475- 
Page 479. 
Page 480. 
Page 481. 
Page 481. 
Page 482. 
Page 483. 
Page 493. 
Page 494. 
Page 499. 


1xi. 


Begins on. 


Page 444. 
Page 449. 
Page 459. 
Page 459- 
Page 463. 
Page 463. 
Page 465. 
Page 470. 
Page 477. 
Page 478. 
Page 479. 
Page 479. 
Page 483. 
Page 483. 
Page 484. 
Page 494. 
Page 495. 
Page 500. 


ἹΧΊ]. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 


SPURIOUS COPTIC WRITINGS ON EPHESUS. 


SENUTI, THE MONK. 


In our day an interest has been excited in Coptic Monophysite 
literature, and Zoega and EH. Revillout have brought to light an 
account of Senuti, whose day, according to Professor Stokes in his 
article on him in Smith and Wace’s Dvétionary of Christian Bt- 
ography, is ‘‘ July 1st, in the ancient Coptic Calendar.’’ But the 
account of him at Ephesus is plainly a lie. For whereas, as we see 
by the Acts below, Nestorius never came into the presence of the 
Third Ecumenical Council, this Senuti is represented as hurling a 
book at him init. If Professor Stokes had known these facts well 
he would not, 1 am sure, have given so much credence as he seems 
to do to the anti-historic legends regarding this wretched Monophy- 
site heretic, and to Nestorianizers’ false impressions against the 
Third Synod. For he writes there of him: 


‘‘Senuti was the name of an anchorite of the Fifth Century, 
whose history was first brought to light by Zoega. It has been 
investigated of late by E. Revillout in a paper on the Blemmyes 
contributed to the /ém. de 1 Acad. des Inscr., 1874, δέει τ t. viii., 
p- 395, and still more elaborately in a series of articles contributed 
by him to the Revue de ὦ Histoire des Religions, 1883, Nos. 4 and 5 
(a). Senuti has strangely faded from the page of history, though 
he seems to have been a leader of special power amid the distracted 
controversies attendant upon the Third and Fourth Councils. He 
was called ‘the prophet’ and invested with supernatural powers. 
He was born about the middle of the Fourth Century. His father 
was a farmer in Egypt, and Senuti fed his sheep in boyhood. But 
this world’s affairs had no charm for him. It was an age when 


(a). On page 545 of the Revue de l’ Histoire des Religions, for 1883, note, 
i find the following on E. Revillout’s articles on Sénuti, 

‘*Ce récit est extrait d’un volume en cours de publication a la librairie Le- 
roux, et quiest intitulé : Récits historiques sur les origines du schisme égyp- 
tian.’ I presume from this that Revillout’s work on Senuti has appeared in 
print, but I have not seen it. 


Senutt, the Monk. Ixiii. 


every enthusiast devoted himself to the monastic life. His uncle 
was a famous anchorite. Senuti was brought to him as a boy to be 
blessed, when his uncle at once recognized his future greatness. He 
attached himself to the monastery of Panopolis, near the town of 
Athrebi, in Upper Egypt, where he soon attained the greatest fame 
for sanctity and orthodoxy. Cyril would not set out for the Council 
of Ephesus till he had secured the company of Senuti and of Victor, 
archimandrite of Tabenna. Zoega, Cat. Mss. Coptic Mus. Borg., p. 
29, gives us Cyril’s own account of this affair (a). Cyril travelled 
in the same ship with Senuti and Victor, while he sent his attendant 
bishops in another vessel. 


‘“ Senuti’s conduct at the Council of Ephesus, as described by 
his disciple and successor, Besa, fully justifies those charges of out- 
rageous violence brought by the Nestorian party against their oppo- 
nents. Besa describes a strange scene which happened at the open- 
ing of the Council. A lofty throne had been placed in the centre 
of the hall, and the four gospels placed thereon. Nestorius entered 
with pomp, and flinging down the gospels on the floor, seated him- 
selfon the throne. Senuti, filled with rage, at once jumped into 
the midst, and snatching up the book, hurled it against the breast 
of Nestorius, accompanying the action with vigorous controversial 
reproaches. Nestorius demanded who he was, and whence, and 
what brought him to the Council, being ‘ether a bishop, nor an 
archimandrite, nor a provost, but merely a simple monk.’ ‘ God sent 
me to the Council,’ replied the undaunted Senuti, ‘ 40 confound thee 
and thy wickedness.’ Whereupon, amid the plaudits of his adherents, 
Cyril at once invested him with the rank and robe of an archiman- 
drite, and thus removed the technical objection raised by Nestorius. 
His career was now marked by miracle. Cyril, by mistake, sailed 
from Constantinople without him, but the sea was no obstacle to 
Senuti. He was wafted on a cloud to Egypt.”’ 


Now let us point out a few of the falsities in this romance or 
forgery of a Monophysite: 

1. As has just been said, Nestorius never appeared before the 
Council of Ephesus at all, as its Acts show. Consequently all this 


(a). This alleged account by Cyril in a Sermon, and the Sermon itself 
which contains it are a forgery as we show below. 


Ixiv. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus 


yarn of Nestorius entering it with pomp, flinging down the Gospe!s. 
ou the floor, and then seating himself on the throne from which 
they had been taken, is mere invention. So is Senuti’s hurling then 
at him ‘‘ with vigorous controversial reproaches,’’ and the conversa- 
tion between them. Hence Professor Stokes is too credulous and 
utterly wrong and unjust to the Orthodox in his statement that, 
‘‘Senuti’s conduct at the Council of Ephesus, as described by 
his disciple and successor, Besa, fully justifies those charges οὗ 
outrageous violence brought by tue Nestorian party against tueir 
opponents.’’ For the Monophysite fiction on which it rests is con- 
tradicted by the evidence of the Acts themselves. The fact is that 
all the violence at Ephesus, as is shown elsewhere in this work, was. 
perpetrated by Nestorius and his friends, Count Candidian and the 
soldiers under his command, and Count Irenaeus; and the pro-Inman, 
anti-creature-worshipping and anti-real-presence Third Council, 
guided in their final decisions by the Holy Ghost, were entirely in- 
nocent and faithful to Christ, and to His truth, and to his Church. 


Since seeing the statement that St. Cyril took Senuti and Victor 
with him to the Council of Ephesus, I have seen Revillout’s French 
of it, and find that his alleged sermon of Cyril on which he bases 
his faith in that story is spurious, for it makes Cyril and Senuti and 
Victor and Cyril’s Egyptian bishops go to Constantinople before 
they go to Ephesus (a). It is froma Vatican manuscript, No. 66, 
consulted by Revillout. But Cyril did not go to Constantinople, 
nor did any of his Bishops, except the four deputed by him to attend 
to his interests and those of the faith before the Emperor and others. 
Revillout does not seem to be well acquainted with the facts told us 
in Cyril’s genuine writings and in the acts of the Ecumenical Synod. 
For if he were he would have seen the spuriousness of such stuff at 
once. Yet in one place he rejects part of Besa’s tales on Senuti, 
as being too much for even himself to believe. Cyril has left us two 
Epistles which describe his voyage from Alexandria to Ephesus. 
They are numbered XX. and XXI. in tome 77 of Migne’s Patro- 
logia Greca. In them lhe makes no mention of Senuti. 


That the Sermon of Cyril, on which Revillout relies, is spur- 
ious, is clear from the following facts: 


(a). The French translation of the spurious sermon ascribed to Cyril is on 
page 551, tome 7 of the Revue del’ Histoire des Religions, Paris, Leroux, 1883. 


Senuti, the Monk. Ixv. 


(A). It is not found anywhere in Cyril’s genuine works. 

(B). Its own internal evidence is against it. For it contradicts 
known historical facts. I give a summary of it: 

Cyril’s alleged sermon goes on to assert what we know to be 
false, that after his arrival at Constantinople before the Third World 
Council, and after his Egyptian Bishops came shortly afterwards, 
he sent to say to the Emperor that the Egyptian Bishops had ar- 
rived ; that the Emperor told him to choose a place for the Bishops 
of the Synod to meet, and asked Cyril to teach him the true, holy 
and Orthodox faith ; then that after Cyril had come to an under- 
standing on that point with the Archbishop of Rome, they chose the 
city of Ephesus, and he (Cyril) sends the Bishops of his jurisdiction 
thither. But the spurious Cyril goes on to assert that he ordered 
the archimandrite Victor to remain at Constantinople because he had 
more boldness than any one else to speak to the Emperor. Cyril 
remained with Senuti till his (Cyril’s) departure from Constauti- 
nople: the alleged Cyril then states that he remained two days in 
the place of Theodosius, when two Eunuchs of the palace disobeyed 
an order of the Emperor. The Emperor was very much irritated 
against them, andoneof them, named Jésinius, fled for refuge to a de- 
pendency of the Sanctuary where St. Cyril dwelt in company with Sen- 
uti and the archimandrite Victor. He prayed Cyril very fervently 
to get him restored to the Emperor’s favor, and after some days the 
Emperor granted himit. Jésinius a little after fell very dangerously 
sick and made Saint Cyril sole legatee of his fortune to distribute 
itin good works. The patriarch (St. Cyril) faithfully accomplishes 
the mandate thus confided to him and richly endows the Church of 
St. Theodore and many churches. On the next day the Emperor 
orders them to depart for Ephesus, and there they condemned the 
impious Nestorius, the cursed heretic. Then they saw that their 
remaining so long at Constantinople was by the secret providence of 
God and on account of the Eunuch Jésinius, and after they had weil 
confirmed the faith with the aid of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Em- 
peror, as joyful as themselves, sends away in peace Cyril, the archi- 
mandrite Victor and Senuti, and all the Bishops who were with 
Cyril. Then the alleged Cyril states that Senuti who had been de- 
layed in Constantinople could not re-embark in time to join St. Cyril 
and the archimandrite Victor, and so was carried on a cloud to 
Egypt. 


Ixvi. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 


Of course, all this is unhistoric trash except the condemnation 
of Nestorius. Revillout protests against the cloud story and deems 
it an interpolation, but the whole document is an anti-historic 
romance or forgery. It is all of a piece. 

Another thing should be noted. According to the Senuti 
romance that monk came into conflict with Nestorius in the Council; 
whereas, according to the spurious Sermon fathered on Cyril, he 
did not go to Ephesus at all, but went straight from Constantinople 
to Egypt on a cloud, with no mention of stops for wood or water or 
provisions—unless, indeed, we reconcile both yarns by understand- 
ing the spurious sermon to teach that Cyril, Victor, Senuti, and all 
the Bishops who were with Cyril went back to Constantinople again 
after the Council, and were then dismissed in peace by the Emperor, 
and then, and not after the first visit, Senuti got left there, and so 
went home not exactly by a balloon but on a cloud to Kgypt. But 
as Cyril was not at Constantinople in A. D. 430 or 431, to put him 
there twice makes two lies instead of one. 

2, Another anti-historic thing in the spurious sermon relates to 
time. It says that after Cyril’s arrival at Constantinople the 
Emperor asked him to fix on a place for holding the Council, and 
that then he (Cyril) came to an agreement with the Archbishop of 
Rome on that, and so they fixed on Ephesus. 

Now, not to mention the fact that Cyril was not at Constanti- 
nople then, the difficulties as to time are as follows: The Emperor 
called the Council, as his edict shows, on November 19, A. D. 430; 
see page 41 below. In that month Cyril held a Synod of the Egyp- 
tian Diocese at Alexandria, and in connection with it drew up his 
Long Letter to Nestorius, and forwarded it by four of his Bishops. 
According to Professor Bright, it was given by them to Nestorius at 
Constantinople, either on Lord’s Day, Nov. 30, or Dec. 7, 430. 
Cyril remained in Alexandria till the time approached for holding 
the Council, when he set out from Egypt and reached ‘‘ Ephesus 
with fifty Bishops about June 2, 431’? (Smith and Wace’s Dict. of 
Christ. Biogr. vol. τ, page 767). After the Council and his re- 
lease from custody, Cyril went straight home to Alexandria, which 
he reached on Oct. 30, 431 (Id., page 768). Consequently he did 
not visit Constantinople at all. And the story that the place of the 
Council was fixed by him while residing in Constantinople, and by 
Celestine while residing at Rome, with many a long day’s journey 


Senuti, the Monk. bx vil, 


between them, is simply a myth clear and plain. And of course, 
all that he is said by this spurious sermon and by Senuti to have 
done in Constantinople never occurred there. 

3. Another yarn is that ‘‘ Cyvz,”’ after the Council, ‘‘ dy mzs- 
take, sailed from Constantinople without’’ Senuti. The fact is that 
Cyril did not go to Constantinople at all in A. D. 430 or 431, before 
or after the Council, and hence he did not sail away from it at all. 
As Professor Bright tells us on the inner column, page 768 of vol- 
ume iv. of Smith and Wace’s Diuétionary of Christian Biography, 
Cyril was under arrest by the Emperor’s order for some time after 
the Synod. He adds, ‘‘ On Oct. 30, Cyril returned to Alexandria.”’ 

4. Another yarn, of course, is his being carried on a cloud to 
Egypt. 

5. Another lie mentioned in Stokes’ article above is that ‘‘ His 
fame was now everywhere established.’’ For no mention is made 
of him by the Orthodox. And if he had been “‘ wafted on a cloud to 
Egypt,’ they would have known of it and reported it. St. Cyril 
does not even mention this ignorant man of whom this legendary 
story tells us he thought so much. I have looked at all the Indexes 
in Migne’s ten volume edition of Cyril, and do not even find Senuti’s 
name. 

6. Then there comes the following stuff (I am quoting the 
Coptic account mentioned by Professor Stokes): 

‘Roman Commanders waging war against those mysterious 
but most pertinacious enemies of the Roman State, the Blemmyes, 
sought direction and assistance from him. Thus about the year 450 
there wasa terrificinvasion, and the dux of Upper Egypt, Maximinus 
hurried to repel the Blemmyes, but before he would advance he sought 
the presence of Senuti. He had, however, retired into the desert fora 
period of spiritual retreat, charging his followers to let no one know of 
his hiding place. Maximinus would, however, admit of no excuse, 
and was led to the saint, who was very angry on account of the in- 
terruption, but yet admitted the plea of urgency. He gave Maxi- 
min his blessing and his girdle, which he was to wear whenever he 
joined battle, if he desired success.’’ This sort of fiction is found 
among the most silly class of monks and of non-monks in the mid- 
ple ages and in the fifth century even. This Senuti is exalted to do 
the work which pertains, as here, to Christ, our Sole High Priest 


Ixviii. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 


and Sole Intercessor above, who is all sufficient (Heb. vii., 25). 
And he is exalted by a miracle similar to the one that took Christ 
up to heaven, (Acts i., 9), for he is borne aloft by acloud. This 
lying and extravagant laudation of a creature would naturally lead, 
as the ages rolled on, to his invocation and to making him share 
Christ’s prerogative of being the sole Mediator in Heaven, that is, 
the sole Intercessor there. Peter the Fuller, the Monophysite Patriarch 
of Antioch, A. D. 471-488, led the way to the worship of saints; see 
vol. 1. of Micaea in this Set, pages 316, 217. But St. Athanasius 
shows that every Orthodox Christian invokes no creature, but God 
alone: See id., pages 237-240, where St. Cyril agrees with him. 
Indeed in his Ecumenically approved Epistle to John of Antioch he 
professes that he follows the opinions of Athanasius, ‘‘ refusing to 
be swerved in anything at all’’ from them. See also id., pages 217-- 
240 for 13 testimonies of St. Athanasius against giving any act of ser- 
vice to a creature, be it even bowing. And see id., pages 240-247, 
for passages from St. Epiphanius, the greatest heresiographer of the 
whole Church, against all creature-worship. 


7. Then we are told that Revillout * * * ‘supports the tradi- 
tion that Nestorius was summoned by the Emperor to the Council of 
Chalcedon, but died before the mission reached him.’’ 


This is most improbable, for his case had been settled by the 
Third Ecumenical Council, and was not opened again. The tradi- 
tion referred to is not historic, but merely legendary. It is not 
therefore, a Church tradition at all. Indeed, I haveseen no Church 
writer quoted for it. 


8. We are told further in the same article of Professor Stokes 
that, 

‘‘Senuti was now about one hundred years old. He would 
have been fortunate had he died then. But he lived to be a heretic 
in the opposite extreme from Nestorius. After the Council of Chal- 
cedon he became a Monophysite and a violent partisan of the pat- 
riarch Dioscorus, of Alexandria. Senuti died under ‘Timotheus 
Aelurus, aged 118 years. ‘The authorities for his life are Zoega and 
Revillout in the works mentioned above.’’ But no ancient writer 
mentions him; and we have no proof that St. Cyril or any of the 
Orthodox ever knew or heard of such aman. And what stuff and 
nonsense is mingled by the Monophysites with the lives of their 


Victor, the Archimandrite. xix. 


Saints, or rather reputed Saints, any one can see who examines. 
‘The accounts of this Senuti are therefore of no historic or certain 
value, even if it could be proven that he ever really existed. And 
80 we dismiss him. 


VICTOR, THE ARCHIMANDRITE. 


**The Court and City of Constantinople during the Council of 
Ltphesus; MS. Bib. Nat., Paris,’’ is the title of a work which I find 
mentioned on page οἱ of the English Church Quarterly Review for 
October, 1891. On page 95, top, a hope is expressed that its pub- 
lication will not long be delayed, and it seems to be implied that 
steps are to be taken thereto. It is described on page 93, as ‘‘An 
unpublished Coptic manuscript of the Bibliothéque Nationale at 
Paris. * * * ‘This document is not, strictly speaking, a history 
of the Council of Ephesus; it is an account of what passed in the 
town and city of Constantinople during the days immediately pre- 
ceding and following the first session of that Council. It only con- 
tains the Acts of the Council incidentally. But it informs us merely 
by its existence of a fact of which we were up to the present time 
completely ignorant. Cyril, not content with being represented at 
the Court of the Younger Theodosius by the official representatives 
of the Council, had taken care to secure the presence of a faithful 
and trustworthy private agent. It is the report or memoir of this 
agent that is contained in the document in question. That agent 
was Victor, archimandrite of Faou (in Coptic, Pheboou). * * * 
But a question that will naturally be asked is, What guarantee is 
there for the genuineness of these documents? Even a cursory ac- 
quaintance with Oriental literature is sufficient to show that of the 
documents preserved in these languages, a large number cannot for 
a moment resist a critical examination. There is probably not one 
of the Coptic lives of the martyrs which is not almost entirely 
apochryphal. Even genuine texts have suffered from extensive in- 
terpolations. However, without being unduly dogmatic, it is pos- 
sible to assert that the documents before us are of a totally different 
character. In the first place they are translated from Greek orig- 


bx, Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 


inals. ‘Their style, their manner, their literary form are not Coptic. 
In the next place, they bear on their face the appearance of genuine- 
ness. They are dated, and their dates harmonize with those 
contained in the ordinary narratives. So far as they follow known 
events they are consistent; so far as they are independent they are 
probable. Weare not at present undertaking a criticism; we present 
to our readers a summary of their contents, stating that Arima facie 
they have all the appearance of being genuine; and we shall leave a 
more thorough examination of the subject until the publication of 
the documents themselves, a publication which we hope will not long 
be delayed. 

‘We ask our readers, then, to accept provisionally this narrative 
as the genuine recital of the monk Victor, written for the benefit of 
the members of his own monastery in Upper Egypt, and incorpor- 
ating incidentally a number of original documents, some known, 
some unknown, including the Acta of the Council, and adding many 
interesting personal details. * * * ‘The first leaf of the manu- 
script is absent, but an idea may be formed of its contents. Besides 
the title it probably contained the preamble mentioning the name of 
Victor, archimandrite of the great convent of Faou, and also the 
summons which Cyril addressed to him. In fact, the second leaf 
begins with the end of this summons. From it we see that the 
Archbishop of Alexandria entreated —we may almost say ordered— 
Victor to give up any business that might retain him, for God 
would care for that, in order that he might at once come to Alex- 
andria. Some few words at the beginning of the leaf lead us to 
suppose that Cyril had spoken in the first part of his letter of the 
imperial commands to all bishops to proceed to Ephesus for the feast 
of Pentecost, to watch over matters of faith. ‘This letter exists in 
the first part of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and may be 
read in the various Conciliar collections. The letter of Cyril to 
Victor is unknown.”’ 

Then this article of the Church Quarterly Review goes on to say 
that this Victor, in response to Cyril’s letter, left Faou (a2) on March 
22, 431, and arrived at Alexandria on March 3a, stayed there with 


(a). Note 1, page 95 of the Oct., 1891, number of the Church Quarterly 
Review, states that ‘‘Faou still exists. It is a little village situated to the 
north of Keneh and Denderah, on the east bank of the Nile.’’ 


Victor, the Archimandrite. Ixxi. 


Cyril until April 27, ‘‘on which day he started for Constantinople. 
where he arrived after a passage of twenty-four days, * * * 
that is, on May 20.’’ On that day Nestorius departed from Con- 
stantinople for the Council at Ephesus. On May 21, Victor has an 
interview with the Emperor. So he has on May 22. Belowit is 
said that, 

‘* When our narrative begins again we find a letter of Cyril to 
the bishops Komarius and Potamon, and to the archimandrite 
Victor. This letter is not contained in the documents published in 
the Acts of the Councils.’’ 


Then follows an account of the exciting scenes in Constantin- 
ople before and after the first Act of Ephesus. The rest of the 
manuscript is lost. Most of the cries alleged in this document to. 
have been raised by the people in Constantinople are Orthodox, but 
the following, on page 111 of the Oct., 1891, number of the Church 
Quarterly Review, border on creature-worship. I give them: 


‘‘ Nestorius has fallen; the Holy Council, azd she who ts mother 
of God according to the flesh have overthrown Nestorius. Mary, the 
floly Virgin, has excommunicated Nestorius.” 


It would be doing injustice to the Orthodox of Constantinople 
to suppose that even the lowest of them was guilty of such folly, 
especially on the basis of a work which bears in places the marks of 
being a forgery or a romance, perhaps by an Egyptian Monophysite. 
But, as we shall see, this account of the alleged Victor does not 
agree with what are known from the original records in Greek to. 
have been the facts of the case. The original letters of Cyril to his 
Bishops at Constantinople make no mention of any Victor at all. 


Let us compare the account of things in the genuine Greek 
documents with those in the Coptic manuscript; that is, let us ex- 
amine whether the genuine mention this Victor as at Constantin- 
ople at all, and how they describe the demonstration of the monks 
to the Emperor’s palace, and the reception of the archimandrites 
by him, and their march thence to the Martyry of Mocius and the 
events which there occurred. 


Let us examine the genuine Greek documents first. 


There is a letter of Cyril ‘‘to the Bishops Comarius and Pota- 
mon, and the Archimandrite of the monasteries, Mr. Dalmatius, and 
Timothy and Eulogius, Presbyters,’’ in which he warns them that 


Ixxil. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 


the official account by Count Candidian was not complete (Cyril’s 

Epist. XXIII., vol. 77, Migne’s Patrologia Greca, page 131). They 
were then at Goneeammonle to guard Cyril’s interests and the faith. 

The contents show that this Epistle was written after the condem- 
nation of Nestorius, consequently after Act I. of the Council. It 
makes no mention of any Victor. 

It is followed by two letters, Epistles XXIV. and XXV., 
which are addressed by Cyril of Alexandria ‘‘to the Presbyters and 
Deacons and laity of Alexandria.’’ They mention the condemnation 
and deposition of Nestorius by the Third World Synod, but do not 
mention Victor. Letter X XVI. is addressed by St. Cyril, ‘‘to the 
Fathers of the monks, and to those who with us practice the mon- 
astic life,’? but it has not a word of Victor. It was written evidently 
when Cyril was in custody for the part he had taken in the deposition 
of Nestorius. 

Epistle X XVII. is addressed to the clergy and people of Con- 
stantinople. Init Cyril tells them what was done at Ephesus by 
the Emperor’s command after the arrival there of Count John. “RR 
does not mention any Victor. According to Hefele’s /zst. of the 
Church Councils, 111., 84, note, Count John did not reach Ephesus 
till August, that is, after Act VI. See this vol., page 6. 


Letter XXVIII. is addressed by Cyril ‘‘to the most religions 
Bishops Theopemptus and Potamon and Daniel at Constantinople in 
regard to the plots from which he had suffered on account of the 
sentence passed upon Nestorius and John of Antioch. It was 
written after the arrival of Count John at Ephesus, which it men- 
tions, aud therefore relates to the latter part of the Council, a fact 
which is evident also from Theopemptus being addressed in its title, 
for he had taken part in its Act I., and was now at Constantinople. 
It makes no mention of Victor. Letter X XIX. among Cyril’s is an 
Epistle of Alypius, the presbyter of the Apostles, to him. It is 
silent as the grave as to any Victor. Then comes an Epistle of 
Maximian, Nestorius’ successor in the Episcopate of Constantinople, 
which was some little time after the Council, and therefore beyond 
the limits of our inquiry. It says not a word of any Victor. 

These are the only letters cf Cyril of about this time which bear 
on the state of things at Constantinople. But the matter relating to 
the Councils contain others. Thus tome IV. of Mansi, col. 1257- 


Victor, the Archimandrite. Ixxiii. 


1260, contains an Epistle of the archimandrite Dalmatius to the 
Third Synod, and an Epistle of the Council to him in response. His 
monastery was near Constantinople, and he had advocated their 
cause before the Emperor, and inclined him to favor them and their 
deposition of Nestorius. On pages 1427-1430 of tome IV. of Mansi’s 
Concilia we find ‘‘An Answer of Bishops who were found at Constan- 
tinople to the Commonttory from the Holy Synod’’ of Ephesus. This 
tells how the Nestorian party at Constantinople had kept everything 
favorable to the Ecumenical Council from reaching that city, how 
a beggar had bound in a reed the Epistle of the Third Council Σὺ the 
Bishops and Monks, and so had gone his way begging, and had 
brought it to Constantinople. Straightway on its contents becoming 
known, ‘‘ All the monasteries arose, together with their archiman- 
drites, and went out to the Palace singing antiphons.’’ Among 
them was the Archimandrite Dalmatius, who had for forty-eight 
years refused to leave his monastery. Let us believe most charitably 
that he gave himself not to idleness, but to labor such as befitted his 
station, and to prayer there, as a good monk should,’’ as sound 
monks, like St. Epiphanius on the Massalian heretical and idle pre- 
tenders to monkery, advise all monks to do. 


‘‘But while he was praying on this matter, there came down a 
voice from Heaven to him, which said that he should go forth, for 
God was not willing that his flock should perish at last. And there 
was a great crowd of the Orthodox with them. So when they 
reached the palace, the Archimandrites were invited in by the Em- 
peror and went inside. And the multitude of the monks and of the 
people remained outside singing antiphons. Then the Archiman- 
drites got a righteous answer from the Emperor and came out. All 
cry out, Tell us the commands of the Emperor! Then the archi- 
mandrites reply, Let us go to the Martyry of the holy Mocius, and 
read the Epistle. And ye shall learn also the answer of the 
Emperor. ‘Then all departed, monks and people, for the way was 
one mile (a); and when they were singing the last Psalm, at the last 


(a). Greek, ἦν yap ἡ ὁδὸς κεφαλὴ pia, This is rendered in the Latin of the 
parallel column in Mansi, ‘ erat enim via, qua incedebant, ex capitalibus una.’’ 
In English the expression is literally, ‘‘ Hor the way was one head,’’ which 
seems to make no perfect sense. I have supposed that the mile-stones of that 
place had a capital or head of some sort, and that so in time the expression 


Ιχχῖν. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 


part of the city, the people met them, and the monks sang, with 
wax tapers [in their hands]. And when they saw the multitudes 
they shouted against the enemy [Nestorius]. They come to the 
Martyry (a2) of the holy Mocius, and the Epistle is read to them. 


The people in Constantinople all with one voice shouted, 
Anathema to Nestorius.’’ 


Answer of Dalmatius [to the people]. 


The holy Dalmatius went up ona high place (6), and said, If 
ye wish to hear, be still, and learn, and hinder not those who read; 
but be patient that ye may hear the words accurately. The most 
religious Emperor read the Epistle which has been just read to your 


came to mean amile or such other distance as was measured by it. There were 
several palaces at Constantinople, but which is referred to in this narrative I 
can not tell. On them see the work of the Greek Patriarch, Constantius, in 
Greek and French. The French translation bears the title Constantiniade ou 
Description de Constantinople Ancienne et Moderne. Constantinople, 1846. 
Constantius’ name does not appear on the title page, but on the second page. 
after it he is mentioned as the author. Chapter X., page 51, mentions the pal- 
aces: and page 44 tells us that the Church of St. Mocius was in the Twelfth 
Region or Part of the city. But so many changes have occurred in Constanti- 
nople since A. D. 431, and the mention of the palace is so indefinite, that I find 
it dificult to trace the exact route from the palace to it. Ido not find the Mar- 
tyry of St. Mocius in our day. Like most martyries it was probably more or less 
abused, but after this time, to the spiritual whoredom of worshipping and in- 
voking creatures, and so by God’s providence was given up to be destroyed. 
We read however of nothing of that kind done by any body on this occasion, 
and it would be likely to be mentioned ifit had been done. See how strongly 
St. Athanasius denounces the sin of invoking any but God on page 238 of vol. i. 
of Nicaea in this Set, and compare Cyril’s Anathema VIII., and Anathema IX. 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, in both of which by necessary implication the 
Universal Church condemns all worship of anything but Divinity. 


(a). Greek,70 Μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου Moxiov, A martyry wasa church built over a 
martyr’s remains. In that age when a man’s name was given to a martyry it 
implied therefore that it was the only one in the world which bore his name. 
Whether the Mary Church at Ephesus was an exception to that rule will be 
treated of hereafter in another volume, if God will. Oh! that all churches 
were named after God alone as in the Ante-Nicene Church, none after a mere 
creature. Naming them after saints has often been associated with creature- 
worship, and has sometimes led to it. 


(6). Or, ‘into the pulpit,” or “into the bema;” Greek, ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ. 


Victor, the Archimandrite. Ixxv. 
Piety (2), and he was persuaded [by it]. For I was saying to the 
Emperor, when he came to me, that he ought to write to the Holy 
Synod what things were said to him and [yet] were not written [to 
it] (6). And he sent [them] to me, (ὦ) and they were read. And 
(that I may not grieve him), he did send forth [to the Synod] what 
things were right [to be written to the Synod], but those who took 
them away did not show them, but they secretly showed another 
writing instead of them. Therefore I said to him those things 
which are fit and right, but it is not permitted to tell them now 
before your Piety (4). For think not that I am some lifted up or 
boastful man; for God will crush the bones of the hypocrites. For 
the Master [that is, the Emperor] heard all things that have been 
done [in the Council] in [their] order, and rejoiced with thanks- 
giving to God and agreed with the [whole] series of the utterances 
of the Holy Synod, as behooves his Imperialness, not following my 
words but the faith of his grandfathers and fathers. Moreover, as 
was fit, he received and read [the Epistle of Cyril to the Bishops and 
Monks], and was persuaded, and said as follows: If things are so, 
let the Bishops who are to come to me [from the Council] come. 
And I said to him, No one suffers them to come. And he said, No 
one hinders. AndI said, that they have been seized and hindered 
from coming. And I said furthermore, that many of that party 
[the Nestorians] come and go unhindered; but no one permits the 
Acts which have been done by the Holy Synod to be brought to 
your Piety; moreover in regard to the other party, that is, that of 
Cyril, I said to the Emperor himself, before all, Whom dost thou 
wish to hear, the Bishops, six thousand in number, or one impious 
man? ‘The six thousand, { meant, who are under the holy Metro- 
politan Bishops (e). That was done in order that he might send 


(a). The Epistle to the Bishops and Monks above mentioned. Was it 
Cyril’s Epistle XXIII. just mentioned? 

(ὁ). Greek, ὅτε ὥφειλε γράψαι τῇ ayia Συνόδῳ, a ελέχθη αὐτῷ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγράφη. 
This may also be rendered, ‘‘ what things were chosen by him and [yet] had 
not been sent.”’ 

(c). Or, ‘‘He sent for me.”’ 

(4). A Byzantine title given to Bishops, the Emperor, etc., and here to the 
people. Such Byzantinism is not to be approved nor imitated. Happily we 
are free from that particular form, though we use others wrongly. 

(e). Greek, Τίνος θέλεις ἀκοῦσαι, τῶν ἐξακισ χιλίων ἀριθμῷ ἐπισκόπων͵ ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου 
δυσσεβοῦς, τῶν ἐξακισχιλίων εἶπον, οἵ τινὲς εἰσὶν ὑπὸ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῶν Μητροπολιτων, τῶν 


Ixxvi. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 

Nc SN aD τ τυ ea 
for the Bishops and that those of them who are to come may come, 
and that so those who have performed the Acts may make them 
clear. I meant the most holy Bishops who are now coming from 
the Holy Synod. And hesaid, Thou hast made a fair request. And 
moreover, he added one word and said, Pray for me. And I know 
that the Emperor has followed in preference God and the Holy 
Synod, and no longer the perverted men. Pray therefore for the 
Emperor and for us. 

ae Poe in Constantinople all with one cry said, Anathema 
to Nestorius.’ 

But now, secondly, what shall we think of the genuineness of 
this Coptic manuscript, and the conclusions of the reviewer in the 
Church Quarterly regarding it? In reply to this I summarize not. 
all, but a few of the facts against it : 


1. As to the statement above that, 

‘Cyril, not content with being represented at the Court of the 
younger Theodosius by the official representatives of the Council, 
had taken care to secure the presence of a faithful and trustworthy 
private agent. It is the report or memoir of this agent that is con- 
tained in the document in question. ‘That agent was Victor, archi- 
mandrite of Facu.’’ It is not true that the Council of Ephesus had 
any representatives at Constantinople till after its Act I. 

But Cyril had representatives of his own at Constantinople, not 
a mere archimandrite, but four Bishops, Theopemptus, Potamon, 
Daniel and Comarius, before the Council, and two of them, Potamon 
and Comarius, remained at Constantinople, and the other two, Theo- 
pemptus and Daniel, went to Ephesus and reported to the Council, 
as we see on pages 359-385 below, the result of their mission. Af- 
ter that, we find Theopemptus again in Constantinople acting with 
Potamon and Comarius as Cyril’s representative at the Court. And 
Cyril writes to them there and makes no mention of any Victor. 
His Letter is addressed ‘‘ Zo the Bishops Theopemptus, Potamon, and 
Daniel.’’ ‘The fact that Victor’s name is omitted makes against the 
genuineness of Cyril’s alleged letter to him and them, as does the 
fact also that it is not mentioned in the matter relating to the Coun- 


ἁγίων ἐπισκόπων. Here, asin the letter above on page 38 summoning the Third 
Council, the highest Bishops are all included under the appellation ‘‘ Metro- 
politans.”’ 


Victor, the Archimandrite. ° Ixxvii. 


cil. I have examined as to Victor’s name in all the indexes of the 
ten volumes of Cyril of Alexandria’s works in Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca, and the result is told below. 


I have looked over the names of Cyril of Alexandria’s repre- 
sentatives at Constantinople, mentioned at the heads of his letters, 
but find no Victor mentioned as among them. ‘Those letters which 
are not far from the time of the close of Act I. of the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod are as follows : 


(A). Lpistle X. The Greek heading of this letter is not found. 
The Latin, translated, is, ‘‘ Cyril to his Clerics who are at Constanti- 
nople.’’ ‘The alleged Victor, Cyril’s friend, is not found in it. The 
translation into Latin by Marius Mercator of that Epistle in Migne’s 
tome 77, col. 69 and after, and the Commonitory subjoined to it con- 
tain nothing of Victor’s name or deeds. 


(B). Cyril’s Epistle XXVIII. is addressed ‘‘ to the Bishops 
Theopemptus, Potamon, and Daniel.’’ ‘There is no mention of Victor 
in the heading or in the body of the Epistle. 


(C). Cyril’s Epistle XXXII. is sent to Juvenal of Jerusalem 
and the other Legates of the Third Ecumenical Council who had 
been sent to Constantinople. Their names there specified in the 
heading are ‘‘Juvenal, Flavian, Arcadius, Projectus, Firmus, Theo- 
doret, Acacius, and Philip a presbyter.’’ Victor’s name occurs no- 
where in this letter. 

(D). In columns 371-374 of tome 77 of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca we find three fragments of Cyril addressed “20 the Monks 
who arein Phua (πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Φουᾷ μοναχούς). Victor’s name does not 
occur in them. 

(EZ). Nor, finally, do I find it in the Index to the volume (vol. 
77 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca) in which they stand, nor in any 
other index of the 10 tomes of Cyril in Migne’s Patologia Graeca. 

(F). I do however find in Cyril of Alexandria’s Apologeticus 
to the Emperor Theodosius (Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 76, page 
485), a Victor’s name mentioned, as I do also in P. E. Pusey’s edi- 
tion of that work in the same place. I translate what is said of this 
Victor in Pusey’s Greek of Cyril, Volume VII., Part 1, page 455: 

‘And the beloved monk Victor has been tried, with me, by the 
arrows of an unbridled tongue. For some of those who, I suppose, 
are wont to speak falsely brought the accusation against him, that 


ἸΧΧνΊΙ. Spurious Coptic Writings on Epheszs. 


he himself also had prated certain things out of place against me, 
so that when he came into the city of the Ephesians to me some of 
the Holy Synod vehemently accused him [of so doing]; and, further- 
more, all turned away from him, as hating one of the unholy. So 
they continued to apply to him the names murderer of his father 
and murderer of his brother and whatsoever names are similar to 
those. And the old man learning of that, when very many holy 
Bishops were standing around him, raised up his hands to heaven: 
and swore in an unusual manner, [that is] by the holy Dipping (a) 
and the august mysteries of the Anointed One, that he knew no 
such thing: and so, with difficulty, both I and he himself were able 
to conciliate the souls of those who were grieved [at him].”’ 


Is this the Victor mentioned in the work criticized in the Church 
Quarterly Review? \know not. But nothing is here said of his 
fulfilling any mission for Cyril at Constantinople or of his having 
been there at all. Nor does Cyril say when he came to Ephesus. 
If he came at the beginning of Act I., or during it, he could not have 
been at Constantinople when the narrative in dispute makes him to 
be. He might however have come later, but the fact is we are not 
told when he came. But it is plain that Cyril does not here corrob- 
orate this Romance of Victor being his representative at Constanti- 
nople, or his being there at all. 


2». The Victor mentioned above in the article on Senuti was 
archimandrite of Tabenna. ‘This one was archimandrite of Faou, 
as the Reviewer tells us. 


3. In this account of Victor in the Church Quarterly Review I 
find no mention made of Senuti as his colleague in labor at Constan- 
tinople for Cyril. Here Senuti has no place nor name even. 


4. Remembering the just remark above of the Reviewer of this 
alleged work of Victor, namely, that, 


pe νει ee Ὁ δ ee 

(a). Greek, ὀμώμοκεν ἀσυνήθως, κατὰ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος καὶ τῶν σεπτῶν τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ μυστηρίων. I have rendered σεπτῶν here by august. It cannot be ren- 
dered adorable because, as all admit, Cyril held, as we show in note 606 below, 
that there is nothing to worship there, and that to worship Christ’s humanity is 
Man-Worship. See pages 250-278. The Nestorians admitted with Cyril that 
the Substance of Christ’s Divinity is not in the Eucharist, but differed from him 
in holding that the substance of Christ’s humanity is there and that it is to be 
worshipped by bowing: see for their views, id., pages 250-313. 


Victor, the Archimandrite. lxxix. 


‘There ts probably not one of the Coptic Lives of the Martyrs 
which ts not almost entirely apochryphal,’”’ and that ‘‘Even genuine 
texts have suffered from extensive interpolations,’’? and the internal 
evidence furnished by the work itself, I must for the present at least 
set down the work as spurious, or as a mere romance, which however 
makes some use of genuine documents or historical faéts here and 
there as the authors of historic novels do in our time, mingling them 
with their own fiction to make them more interesting because more 
akin to real history, as for instance Sir Walter Scott’s, and Wallace’s 
Ben Hur. ‘The motives however of these stories regarding Victor 
and Senuti were the glorifying of two monks dear to the Monophy- 
sites of Egypt, one of whom at least, Senuti, was ranked as a Saint 
among them. Whether Victor also was I know not. 

I would add that few religious parties have produced more fal- 
sifiers of genuine documents than the Monophysites, and few a 
larger number of forgers of wholly falsedocuments. Anastasius the 
Sinaite tells us: 

‘Those of the Universal Church in Alexandria told us that after 
the times of the blessed Eulogius, the Pope (a), there was a certain 
Imperial Prefect of Egypt there who was a Severian (4), who for 
time enough had fourteen copyists of the same mind as himself sit- 
ting at his command and falsifying the books of the dogmas of the 
Fathers, and especially those of the holy Cyril: see the Greek in 
Goode’s Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 1., page 196, note 2. 
See id., pages 193-213. 

The account of the state of things in the Coptic manuscript on 
Victor is quite different from the Greek. The Coptic Victor makes 
Cyril write to the Bishops and Victor: whereas the genuine Greek 
documents do not mention Victor’s name at all. 

Another discrepancy lies in the statement of the Victor account 
that the monks in going to the Emperor’s palace uttered a number 
of cries there mentioned, of which the Greek says not a word. 


(a). Hewas Pope, that is Bishop of Alexandria, according to Neale, from 
A. Ὁ. 579 to 607. ope simply means Father and, as Bingham shows, was once 
a title of every Bishop, as it is now of every presbyter in the Greek Communion 
and in the Latin ; in the latter in the English translated form Father in the 
English speaking countries. 

(ὁ). Thatis a follower of Severus, the notorious Monophysite heretical 
leader, the intruding Patriarch of Antioch, A. D. 512-519, who was afterwards 
condemned in the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 6So. 


Ἰχ τς. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 
ΠΕΡ ΑΘ AE so Tet a lls ea rr 
According to the Greek the Emperor seems to have received 
the Archimandrites without much delay: and αἱ of them were in- 
vited by the Emperor into the palace: and all went thence to the 
Martyry of Mocius to hear an Epistle read, and the report of Dalma- 
tius on the Emperor’s course, and after that Nestorius was anathe- 
matized and the demonstration ended. 


But the Coptic account makes the monks weary out the Emperor 
by their shouts and persistency, and then he admits not all the 
archimandrites, but Dalmatius alone, and then Dalmatius comes 
out and the demonstration at once ends. So these accounts do not 
at all agree on those points. I quote the Coptic account regarding 
Victor, on page 110 of the Review ; 


‘(In spite of these cries’? [of the monks to the Emperor ask- 
ing for the reception of their leaders, the Archimandrites], ‘‘ the 
gate of the palace did not open to the fathers ”’ [of the monks, 
that is their Archimandrites], ‘‘ and the representatives of Cyril and 
the Council were not admitted to the presence of the Emperor”’ 
[But the Archimandrites and their monks were not official represent- 
atives of Cyril nor from the Council, but only their friends]. ‘“‘ The 
monks did not show themselves discouraged ; they continued their 
cries, and at length, wearied out, T heodosius ordered Dalmatius the 
Archimandrite to be brought before him. He made representations 
to him; the Emperor replied by making him read the letter he had 
sent to the Council, then he dismissed him, and so this first demon- 
stration came to an end.’’ But what letter is here meant by this 
romancer? Is ita letter of Dalmatius to the Ecumenical Council, 
or is it one of the Emperor’s? If the latter be intended it is due to 
remark that no letter of the Emperor at this time favored Cyril or 
Orthodoxy, or even permitted Bishops to come to Constantinople 
from the Council. Compare Dalmatius’ account above. 


Then we are told that ‘‘ some days afterwards’’ Victor enters 
the presence of the Emperor and delivers what is, in substance, the 
same message as Dalmatius had given him before, to the effect that 
the utterances of the Third Ecumenical Council were kept from the 
Emperor, whereas those of the Nestorians were admitted to him. 
The Greek records make no mention of Victor or of that alleged 
scene at all. hen the Coptic Victor manuscript tells us that, ‘four 
days’ later still, another scene occurred in the great Church of Con- 


Victor, the Archimandrite. Ixxxi. 


stantinople on this matter when the people and the clergy raised 
shouts of approval of Cyril and the Third Council, and the Acts 
of its first session are read, and in the course of them the manuscript 
ends. ι 


The reviewer towards the end (page 115 of the Oct. no. of the 
Church Quarterly Review), admits that 

‘There are difficulties in the story, as he tells it, but in many 
points a reader of the ‘ Acta’ will find it harmonize with known 
authorities and supplement them.”’ 


There are certainly ‘‘ difficulties’? in this Coptic story, for out- 
side of the original documents which its author uses in making up 
his romance, he contradicts, as we see, other documents known to be 
genuine, and we have seen no proof that anything in it is true ex- 
cept the original documents which its author inweaves into his novel 
or romance, as our historical novelists do to-day. Indeed we can- 
not prove that the Victor whom it makes its hero was ever in Con- 
stantinople in his life, or that he ever even existed. 


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE THIRD WORLD SYNOD. 


P. KE. Pusey in Volume VII., Part I. of his edition of the 
Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Works, pages vil. and viii. of the 
Praefatio tells us where some codices of the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
cil are to be found. 


lxxxXil. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME. 


FOREMATTER TO THIS VOLUME, AND TO 
ACT I. OF EPHESUS. 


PAGE. 

Dedication, 
Preface, : : : : : : : : ‘ i-iv. 
Introduction, . : ; ν-ῖν. 
Rise and Spread of the Meee estes on ἐμὲ Inman, 

on the worship of Christ’s humanity, on the Eucharist, 

and on the kindred themes; with an account of the 

Controversy on them which immediately preceded the 

Third Ecumenical Council and led to it; all this comes 

under the general head of Events before the Council, xv-lii. 
List of Donors to the Fund to Publish the VI. Ecumenical 

Synods, on this volume, ‘ 4 ; } i liii-lv. 
Text-Leaps, lv. 
Location and subject Hater be the most unpartant Notes on 

volume I. of Ephesus, : : : ly—lvili. 
Location of Notes which do not eines on the pages to which 

they belong, : : : : lix—Lxi. 
Spurious Coptic ἀὐδυιοιθι on pee 

I, Senuti, the Monk, . : . : : . stile 

2, Victor, the Archimandrite, ; : . . lxix—lxxx1.. 
Where some manuscripts of the Third Ecumenical Council 

may be found : 5 : : : : : lexxi. 
Table of Contents of this volume, . Ixxxti-lxxxikz, 
What were the Acts of the Third Beameniest Synod in the 

Ninth Century ? : 1-4. 
The Dates of the Sessions of the Third Henwienical Count 5 


The Circular Letter and Decree of the Emperors, Theo- 
dosius II. and Valentinian III., to each of the Metro- 
politans, convoking them to the Third Ecumenical 


Council, ; 5-8. 
Second Decree of the Eee Aneel το the Bishawe ἐξ 
the Third Ecumenical Council, . ; ; Σ . 8-18 


END OF THE FOREMATTER. 


Its Opening, 


Reading of it by Peter, 


Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod. Ixxxili, 


THE ACTS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 


PAGE. 


Act I. 


Date of the Synod, 


Names of the Bishops present and their Sees, 


Statement by Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, on the con- 


troversy between Cyril, his Bishop, and Nestorius, the 
matter which led to the calling of the Council, and his 


Ig 
19 


19-21 
21-29 


offer to read the papers pertaining to the affair, . . 30-32 


Order of the Synod by Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, that 


the Emperor’s letter summoning the Synod be read 
and put in front of the Acts, 


Firmus, Bishop of Ceesarea in Cappadocia, asks Memnon, 
Bishop of Ephesus, to state how many days had passed 
since their arrival there. Memnon testifies that the 
Council had already waited sixteen days, according to 
Roman time, (fifteen, according to ours), beyond the 
date mentioned in the Emperor’s Decree just read, for 
the Prelates to appear, 


Cyril of Alexandria proposes that the Council proceed to 
business, and that the papers pertaining to it be read in 
their order, and states that a Second Decree of the 
Emperors had been read to the Synod by Count Can- 


32 


32-41 


42 


didian, urging action without any delay, . : . 42-43 


At the suggestion of Theodotus of Ancyra, the reading of 


the papers is postponed. Theodotus proposes that 
instead they proceed to summon Nestorius to appear 
before them and give an account of his opinions. The 
Synod assents, 


Three summonses sent to Nestorius; he refuses them; ill- 
treatment of the messengers of the Council by the 


44 


Nestorian party, . : ᾿ : ᾿ : ; . 44-49 


IxxxIv. Table of Contenis 


Nestorius having thus received the three canonical citations, PAGE. 
and refused to appear, the Council, at the suggestion 
of Juvenal of Jerusalem, proceeds to examine the 
dogmas of Nestorius; and, first, the Creed of the First 
Ecumenical Synod is read at Juvenal’s suggestion, and 
they proceed to settle the dispute between Cyril and 
Nestorius as to its meaning, : : , . . 49-51 
Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, submits to the Council 
Cyril’s Short Letter to Nestorius, which teaches that 
the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod proclaims 
that God the Word Himself did really become incarnate 
in the Virgin, and that therefore the Virgin Mary did 
bring forth God the Word in His second birth. Cyril 
also disclaims ‘‘ co-worshipping a Man withthe Word,’’ 
teaches the Substance Union, and the do¢trine of the 
Economic Appropriation to God the Word of the things 
of the Man put on by Him, to avoid, as is explained on 
pages 237-240, vol. 1 of Vicaeain this Set, worshipping 
Christ’s humanity, : : Ἵ : : 52 
At the suggestion of Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, itis read, 52-129 
Then Cyril of Alexandria submits to the Synod the question 
whether his Letter just read is not in harmony with the 


First Ecumenical Synod and its Creed just read, 129 
Decision of the Synod, given by vote, thatitis. The vote 
was unanimous for Cyril, . ; : : 129-154 


Next, on motion of Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, πὰ Epistle 

of Nestorius in reply to Cyril is read in order that the 

Synod may ascertain whether it agrees with the Creed 

and the other utterances of the First Ecumenical Synod 

or not. Nestorius’ Epistle plainly denies the doctrine 

of the Incarnation, and Cyril’s doctrine of the Economic 

Appropriation of all things of the Man put on to God 

the Word, errors which reduce his worship of Christ to 

mere Man-Worship (Av@pwzolatpeta), as St. Cyril brands 

it, that is, to Creature-Worship, . : : 154-166 
Cyril then asks the Ecumenical Council to ἀδείας whether 

Nestorius’ Letter is in harmony with the Creed of the 

First Ecumenical Synod, ! ‘ 166 


Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod. xxx; 


The Council in reply vote and unanimously decide that itis PAGE. 
not. Atthe end of the vote they burst forth into shouts 
of anathema against Nestorius, his Letter and dogmas, 
and brand him as a heretic, and they anathematize him 
who does not anathematize Nestorius, and him who 
communicates with him; and call for the reading of the 
Letter of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, on the Faith, 166-178 


On motion of Juvenal of Jerusalem it is read. Itis addressed 
to Nestorius; and after condemning the Pelagian heresy 
and the heresy of Nestorius, it warns him that after his 
two warnings from Cyril of Alexandria and one from 
himself, he will be excluded from the Episcopate and 
the communion of the whole Church, unless he returns 
to the right way; and definitely tells him further that 
unless within ten days after he gets that Letter he re- 
nounces his heresies, he will be cast out from all the 
communion of the Universal Church, . : : 178-203 


That Letter of Celestine’s was deemed Synodal by Cyril in 
his Long Letter to Nestorius just below. See it towards 
the beginning. It represented what of the West was 
then under Rome, though written by Celestine, whom 
Cyril there calls its ‘‘ President,’’ . : ‘ 209-213 


At the end Celestine states that he had sent eee document 
to Cyril of Alexandria, who in the matter would act in 
his place, : : ‘ 202-203 


We shall see that Cyril ara it to ΠΕ with his 
Long Letter, which has the Twelve Anathemas and 
which has the same demands on the part of Cyril and 
his Patriarchate for renouncing heresies as Celestine’s, 
and that within the same limit, that is, within ten days 
after its reception, A : ‘ 209-212 


‘Then Peter, a Presbyter of ie aes proposes to read his 
Bishop Cyril’s Long Letter to Nestorius which has the 
Twelve Anathemas, which he asserts to be ‘*in har- 
mony with those things which have been read,’’ that is, 
with the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod and with 
Cyril’s Short Letter just approved as in harmony with 
it. To admit this claim is practically to approve the 


Ixxxvl. Table of Contents. 


ng .ς..-.-ς.:ςνυ..-.-ς--ςςς,::ςοεςς͵ς---------ςςς.-ς.ςςςοςς-ο--ο «Ὁ» 


Long Epistle as in accord with the Creed of Nicaea. PAGE. 
Its very title shows it also to be Synodal, that is, from 
Cyril and his whole Patriarchate of Alexandria, . : 204. 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, moves that it ‘‘be read, and be 
put into the Acts.”’ It was accordingly read by Peter 
and inserted in the Acts, which both parties at the time, 
Orthodox and Nestorians, understood to be an approval 
of it by the Ecumenical Council . : : : 205-358: 


Both these documents are here put together as expressing 
the decision of the chief see of the West and its Synod, 
and the chief sound see of the East with its Synod 
against Nestorius and his heresy: aye, the bulk of the 
Church West and East asthe result showed, 206, 209, 212, 213, 


Both these documents had been presented to Nestorius in 
his palace at Constantinople after the Eucharistic serv- 
ice on Lord’s Day, November 30, or Lord's Day, 
December 7, A. D. 430, by four bishops deputized by 
Cyril to that errand; namely, Theopemptus, Daniel, 
Potamon and Comarius. The latter two were still at 
Constantinople to represent Cyril, and to care for his 
interests and those of the truth. But Theopemptus and 
Daniel were present at Ephesus in the Synod, on this 
June 22, 431, Roman time. Next the Presbyter Peter 
of Alexandria states that the Letter of Celestine above 
and that of Cyril had been delivered to Nestorius. He 
begs the Council therefore that the two Bishops present 
who had delivered the Letters from Cyril be questioned 
on that matter, : ; : : : : 359-366 


Flavian, Bishop of en tells them to state whether they 
had delivered the Letters, and whether Nestorius had 
satisfied their demands, : : : : 367-368, 373 


In reply, Theopemptus and Daniel, the Prelates meant, 
state that they had delivered the letters to him and how 
he had disregarded them and the warnings and threats 
of excommunication in the letters, and still preached his 


errors,” « ‘ 2 é : : ‘ 369-372, 374-384 


Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod. Ixxxvii, 


Next the Council, at the suggestion of Fidus, Bishop of PAGE. 
Joppa, and Cyril of Alexandria, hear the sworn testi- 
mony of Bishops Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of 
Melitine, who testified that only the ‘‘ day before yes- 
terday,’’ that ison June 20, 431, Nestorius had persisted 
in teaching his heresy, therefore about six months after 
the expiration of the ten days limit for repentance and 
renunciation given him by Synods in the West and East 
through Celestine and Cyril, : . 385-417 


Then Peter of Alexandria at the suggestion of Flavian, 
Bishop of Philippi, submits passages from Fathers. 
Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, orders that they be read 
and inserted in the Acts. The Synod approves. So 
there were read at the demand of the Council 21 Ex- 
cerpts from 12 different Orthodox writers, on the Incar- 
nation, and on other matter in dispute to guide the de- 
cisions of the Council. They are Peter, Bishop of 
Alexandria and Martyr; Athanasius, Bishop of Alex- 
andria; Julius, Bishop of Rome; Felix, Bishop of 
Rome and Martyr; Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria ; 
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and Martyr; Ambrose, 
Bishop of Milan; Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus ; Basil, 
Bishop of Caesarea; Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; At- 
ticus, Bishop of Constantinople; and Amphilochius, 
Bishop of Iconium ; 4 Westerns and 8 Easterns; or, 
reckoning by their sees, 4 of two African sees, Alexan- 
dria and Carthage; 4 of four Asiatic sees, Nazianzus, 
Caesarea, Nyssa, and Iconium; and 4 of three Euro- 
pean sees, Rome, Milan, and Constantinople, 417-449 


Next Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the 
Secretaries, submits to the Council proofs of Nestorius’ 
‘‘blasphemies ’’ taken out of his own writings, . 449 


At the order of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, and all the Bish- 
ops, they are read and inserted in the Acts to show the 
fairness and good faith of the Synod in dealing with him. 
They are most plainly heretical, and are 20 in number. 
They oppose Cyril’s teachings in his Epistles above 
approved by the Council, for, 1, they deny the Incar- 


1xxxvlil. Table of Contents. 


nation ; and, 2, the do¢trine of Economic Appropria- PAGE. 
tion; and, 3, assert the paganism of worshipping Christ’s 
separate humanity; and, 4, affirm Cannibalism (’Av0pu- 
ποφαγία) in the Eucharist, and one-nature Consubstantia- 
tion there, and of course the real presence of one nature 
of Christ, that is his humanity, there ; and Nestorius’ 
disciple, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, acting on Nes- 
torius’ own teaching of the lawfulness of worshipping 
Christ’s separate humanity, worshipped it there, as 
probably Nestorius himself did, . : - : 449-480 


Peter next submits to the Synod another document from the 
West, a letter from Capreolus, Metropolitan and Bishop 
of Carthage, to the Synod, sent by Besula, one of his 
deacons, in which he exhorts them to maintain the 
ancient faith and to condemn novelties. Impliedly at 
least he condemns the Pelagians, . : : : 481-486 
On motion of Cyril it is inserted in the Acts, : : οὐ 388 


Then with all the testimony on both sides in, and with the 
fullest proof of Nestorius’ denial of the Incarnation, and 
of guilt in Relative Worship, and Creature Worship, 
and Cannibalism, and one-nature Consubstantiation on 
the Eucharist, they depose him, and add their subscrip- 


tions to that act, . : : : 486-504 
Next comes the sending of the Buen of Deposition by the 

Ecumenical Council to Nestorius, ς : : .- 504 
End of Act I,, : : : ᾿ : - 8 . ~ 504 


ADDITIONAL NOTES ON ACT I. OF THE THIRD 
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 


NoTE A, on pages 11-19 of this volume. On the attempt of 

the Emperor Theodosius II. to govern the Decisions of 

the Third Ecumenical Synod, and to crush Cyril and to 

favor Nestorius, . : : : : . 505 
NOTE B, on page Ig of this Ue On the expression 

‘‘ RTERNAL AUGUST ONES,”’ being an addition to Note 

20 there, : - : . : : : : 505-512 


Additional Notes. Ixxxix, 


Notre C. On Cyril’s language on page 42 of this volume, PAGE. 

text,’ "-: : ° 5 : 512 
Note D. On the expression of « ‘Peter, the Pr eee on 

page 418, text, ‘‘ books of the most holy and most conse- 

crated fathers and of Bishops and different martyrs,’’ and 

on the note on page 427, which states that the Ecumenical 

Council must not be understood to approve anything ina 

writer’s works which they have not passed on, and in- 

deed which they may not even have seen, . 513-517 
NoTE KH. On Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18 on pages 472-474 

above, and on its absurd and blasphemous sequences, 517-528 
NoTE F. The Twenty Passages from Nestorius, for which 

he was condemned and deposed by the Universal Church 

in its Third Ecumenical Synod, . ἢ : 529-551 
In memory of a Miracle of God’s mercy to me and to this 

Set and to the Donors to the Fund to Publish the Six 


Synods, 552 
INDEX I. Index to the ἘΠ: (ἢ the Benes ene in 
Act I. of Ephesus, or represented in it, , 553 


List 1. Comprising those Prelates who were present in 

person or were represented at its opening, or took part 

imits Act; 1. Σ : 553-565 
List 2. List of Bishops oe were at presi at athe begin- 

ning, and took no part in its Act I., but who neverthe- 


less subscribed at its end, : ‘ ; : ; 565-568 
INDEX II. General Index, : ‘ . 569-666 
INDEX III. Index to Texts of Holy Sennen : 667-690 
INDEX IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expres- 

sions, : : : : ; : : : . 691-766 


Errata, : : ἃ 3 : : : ; : : 767 


“Ὲ 


‘ 


- - Ὶ 
Ε 4. 
| 7 . i ν 
4 » an ny, egy rae Ὄ νι i heh 
i Manes ; y Ἢ Ὰ 
ann af. arvana nd ΚΝ ᾿ Ao Ἢ 
ἵ : 4 Ἂν Pei eM ee er PP 
ὶ roe, a αν ‘ ᾿ Γ ; tia aa 
ἐμ γσκυν δὲ δ΄ αὐλῇ, w Ay he didi oad Perth αν Ee hie alata ead 5. iat 
7 3 os w WS Li % 
᾿ πη ᾿ ὌΝ 


PV Ree Car ἢ PRN Oe eA hE 


5 


- Ἷ Ἶ she hn 
ἢ city ΘΛ ἡ Loar 


) 


SE ES COMED hi I, | I ieee aa th) si 


ε i i ine 
* " ἔ 
ὶ ‘ δ ι 7 2% ᾿ i 
Ἵ ν νη ἵ ; ie, 5 fa AR ee ι 
ef ΤῊ 
} . 
ag vee \ r ᾿ t = pois hi 
᾿ ἡ i eke ἱ ὰ ide, 8 ται te 
Ψ' pe 1 J Ὁ 
Ὡς ’ fi 
' ry \ " γ ie ed 
y A ‘ λοι ΠΥ ἊΣ 
" i " f ΠΥ. 
ΟΥ̓ ἡ - Ἴ i 


— i δ 
2 7 bie , ᾷ 
ἡ [ ν᾿ 
τὴ Ἷ 
Ὶ τὸ 
ἵ ἣ ¥ 
- ul 
J 
j 
Lc AR 
ΤΕ 
Ai 
Nya 
' ' (* 
ἡ 
is 
j 
é 
5 
Ἷ 
᾿ ὟΝ 
ἢ ) 
Ϊ 
a: 
‘ - Ρ' « 
5 
« - « 
s 
' x 
Υ 
i > 
Ν᾿ δε 
‘ A ὃς 
i iF ὶ Υ Π 
~~ ! : ( 
a ͵ 
᾿" ‘ 
; 
Ἢ ὲ ἢ 
A 
Wile 
i 
" \ 
; iu 
Τὰ ᾿" im ith 7 Ν " 
k 
᾿ ἵ ἙΝ Ay ἡ τὴ i 
, f 4 nis cy lee 
Ι 
ἔ H 


WHAT WERE THE ACTS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL, 
SYNOD IN THE NINTH CENTURY? 


The following is the account of the Acts of Ephesus given by 
Photius in the ninth century. It occurs in Codex or Section XVI. 
of his work, entitled ‘‘ Myriad of Books or Library,’’ and is the 
whole of that section : 


‘““SECTION, XVI. 
ACTS OF THE THIRD SYNOD. 


A Book of the Aéts of the Third Synod has been read [by me |. 
It is made up almost wholly of epistles of the godly Cyril to Nesto- 
rius and of that impious man to him”’ (*). 


Does this description apply to the Acts as we have them in the 
printed editions now? Let us see. If we regard the Epistles of 
Cyril to Nestorius, and Nestorius’ to him, without including the mat- 
ter in the present Acts relating to the said Epistles, it can not be 
said that they form ‘‘ a/most wholly’’ the present Acts as they have 
reached us. 


But if we take Photius to speak only in general terms from his 
recollection of the work, and to include with them the matter on 
them, his remark applies mainly, though probably not exactly, to 
the Acts in their present form, though they contain such a spurious 
document as a creature-worshipping Homily, of which we will speak 
further on, which is later than Ephesus, and was added to them 
between the time of the anti-creature-serving Cyril, in the fifth cen- 
tury, and that of the creature-serving Photius in the ninth, for the 
times between them were corrupting. 


(*). Col. 56, tome 103, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Cod., XVI.: Upak- 
τικὸν τῆς Τρίτης Συνόδου. ᾿Ανεγνώσθη Πρακτικὸν τῆς Τρίτης Συνόδου σχεδόν τι δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν 
τοῦ τε θείου πρὸς Νεστόριον Κυρίλλου καὶ τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς ἐκείνον πρὸς αὐτὸν συντεϑειμένον. 


2 L[utroductory Matter. 


But such additions aside, let us ask, Do Cyril’s Epistles to Nes- 
torius, and Nestorius’ one to him, and the voting on them and other 
matter on them ‘‘ almost wholly’’ make up these Acts now? 


It is true that the First Act of the Synod, which is much the 
longest of the whole, is mainly taken up with the two letters of Cyril 
to Nestorius, and Nestorius’ one to him; and the votes on the shorter 
of Cyril’s two, and on that of Nestorius to him, and the matter in 
reference to them taken from the Fathers, and from Nestorius him- 
self, and the final sentence of deposition against Nestorius, which 
was based on the whole matter. Act I. of Ephesus, which has the 
said Epistles, and the other Acts of that Council, occupy the follow- 
ing spaces in Tome ITI. of Coleti’s Concilia: 


Act I., col. 991-1120, omitting the spurious Homily attributed 
to Cyril, on pages 1111-1118; 121 columns, or more exactly about 
127 columns, less about 4% columns, say about 122% columns. 


This mainly accords with Photius’ description of the Acts in 
his day. 
| Act II., col. 1139-1150,—a little more than 12 columns. This 
Act ends before Celestine’s Epistle to Theodosius. 


Even in this Act Cyril speaks, though it mainly refers toa letter 
of Celestine of Rome. If we subtract two Epistles of Celestine, 
which are not part of this Act but are merely added for information 
after it in Coleti, then this Act II. is reduced to about 10 columns. 


Act III., col. 1151-1164,—12 columns. 


Two Epistles of the Council signed by Cyril occupy about four 
columns. If they are subtracted the Act contains only about eight 
columns outside of them. 


Act IV., which is wholly occupied by a Memorial of Cyril and 
Memnon to the Council, and matters connected therewith, occupies 
columns 1163-1176; that is, about 12 columns. 


Act V., which follows up the business of Cyril and Memnon 
nentioned in Act IV. above, and in which, so far as the Acts proper 
are concerned, Cyrilis a chief speaker, occupies columns 1175-1200, 
or more exactly, less than 25 columns, of which nearly the whole of 
the last four are occupied by a Homily of Cyril of Alexandria against 
John of Antioch, which, from the context, does not seem to be part 
of that Act proper. 


The Acts tn Photius’ Time. "ἢ 


Act VI., columns 1199-1230, or more exactly less than 30 col- 
umns, treats of the matter of the Nestorian Creed, brought to the 
notice of the Synod by Charisius. Somewhat less than four pages: 
at the end are occupied by a Homily of Cyril, which occurs after the. 
subscriptions, and seems to be no part of this Act, though it may 
possibly be; subtracted, they leave but about 26 columns. 

As Peter, Presbyter of Alexandria, was merely the mouthpiece 
of Cyril, whose presbyter and notary indeed he was, this whole Act 
may be said to be Cyril’s in a specialsense. Besides there is, not in . 
this Act, but after it, quite an amount of matter given in the Epistles 
of the Orthodox, that is between Acts VI. and VII., in part of which 
we find matter from Cyril’s pen also. This body of epistles and 
writings occupies columns 1277-1321, or more accurately about 43 
columns, of which two Epistles of Cyril occupy about 3% columns, 
and a letter of Alypius to Cyril nearly two columns more. 

Act VII., and what follows it, occupy columns 1321-1334, about 
13 columns, and deal with the matter of guarding the rights of 
Cyprus and other Churches, the Canons, etc. 


To resume. There are in Act I., say 122% columns. The 
other Acts are reckoned as follows : 


ciel COMMING τὺ ete Sek ee eee 10 
ον Ml eOlinaitis)a aol ek ek ee ee 8 or 12 
ery COMMMNG= εξ τ τ ee eee 12 
IRCEAN ἀν: COlNMNNS. στον, τος eee ὩΣ 25 
ΟΕ ΠΟΙ Πππ|5 τον τ τ σὲ ee ee 26 
AcE VIL, coluning 2220.00.22 ee 12 
94 or 98: 


So that, according to that, Act I., which deals mainly with 
Epistles of Cyril and Nestorius, and matter on them, outnumbers 
the other six by about 28% or 24% columns. 


But if, to the above Cyril-Nestorius epistolary matter, we add 
Acts IV. and V., which are wholly occupied by business relating to. 
the Memorial of Cyril and Memnon, and Act VI., where Cyril, by 
his presbyter Peter, leads every thing; and Acts IT. and III., whick 
are really the complement of ACt I. and of the business regarding 
Cyril’s and Nestorius’ Epistles treated of in it, the total of Cyril- 
Nestorius, or merely Cyrillian matter, will be as follows: 


4 Introductory Matter. 


Aéts. Columns. 
Re ee ee eee 121 
10 σσ'5ΘΘΘΘ9...995»" 10 
ΤΠ Se ee eee ΞΕ ee eee 8 OF 12 
DPV See ee ee ee eee Τ2 
ν:, anna nnn nnn ττ ὉὺῸ 9 === - === === -- 25 
19 Oe ees ao 26 
202 or 206 


In the 13 columns of Act VII., it is not clear who voices the 
utterances expressed in the words, ‘‘ The Holy Synod said: if it was 
Cyril we must therefore add part of those 13 columns to the 202 
above. 

There are other documents now printed between the Acts, such 
as those emanating from the Apostatic Conventicle at Ephesus, from 
its legates to Constantinople, etc., which swell the whole matter in 
the Acts of the Orthodox Synod, and of those of the hostile Con- 
venticle, together, etc., to about 342 columns in Coleti. 


In all the enumerations I have counted the Greek and Latin 
parallel columns together. If we wish to get the exact amount of 
the Greek, we must, in most cases, take only half of each of the 
estimates of columns above. 

From the above we can see that in the broad sense, the Third 
Ecumenical Synod is nearly all made up of Cyril’s and Nestorius’ 
letters, as Photius says, if we include what relates to those letters as 
well. 

But I much doubt, however, whether the documents of the 
Apostatic Conventicle at Ephesus of John, or of its legates to Con- 
stantinople formed in Photius’ day, or at any time before, a part of 
the Book of the Aéts of the Third Synod, for they are no part of the 
Council but are diametrically opposed to it. Even now they are no 
part of its Acts, though, for the sake of fuller information probably, 
they are put between its Acts, as other matter also is. 

The documents in the Forematter to Ephesus were, in all proba- 
bility, not put before its Acts in Photius’ day. One of them, Cyril 
of Alexandria’s Five Book Contradittion of the Blasphemies of Nesto- 
rius, is a volume of itself. Indeed, in the printed editions they vary 
in number according as the fancy of the editors determines. 


Dates of the Sessions. Decree Convoking the Council. 5 


ΤΊ. 


THE DATES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUN- 
CIL WERE AS FOLLOWS : 


Session I., Monday, June 22, 431. 
Session II., Friday, July τὸ, 431. 
Session III., Saturday, July 11, 431. — 
Session IV., Thursday, July 16, 431. 
mescion « Vi, Friday; July 17; 421: 
Session VI., Wednesday, July 22, 431. 
Session VII., Monday, August 31, 431. 


Ti: 


THE CIRCULAR LETTER AND DECREE OF THE EMPERORS, THEO- 
DOSIUS il. AND VALENPINIAN π|. TO EACH OF THE 
METROPOLITANS, CONVOKING THEM TO THE 
THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 


Theodosius II. was Emperor of the East and lived at Constantinople. 
Valentinian III. was Emperor of the West and lived at Rome. Valentinian 
III. was a mere boy. His parents, Constantius III. and Galla Placidia were 
married in January, A. D. 417 (τ). Gibbon says that ‘‘ when he received 
the title of Augustus,” he ‘“‘was no more than six years of age’’ (2). He was 
made Augustus in A. D. 325. Hence he was now only about 12 years old. 
Hence the other associate Emperor, Theodosius II., really did, practically at 
least, the whole work of representing both regarding the Synod. He was born 
A. D. 402, and so was about 29. The decree is dated at Constantinople, a fact 
which shows the greater influence of the Eastern and older monarch. 


In passing it should be said that none of the Six Ecumenical Councils was 
convoked by any Bishop of Rome, but by the Christian Emperors; though, of 
course, at the suggestion and recommendation of Bishops of different sees. This 
has been shown of Nicaea (3). It is shown in this document as to Ephesus. It 
will be shown in the proper places of the four others. May we soon have re- 
formed and thoroughly Orthodox Bishops and Emperors, and may the latter, 
urged by the former, call a sound Seventh Ecumenical Council to do away with 
all the creature invocation, image worship, cross worship, relic worship, altar 
worship, and all the innovations, and errors and anarchies and abuses, in doc- 


(1). See the article Galla Plactdia in Smith and Wace’s Diétionary of Crristian Biog- 
raphy. 

(2). Gibbons’ Rome, Chapter XXXIII. (page 527, vol. 3, of the seven-volume edition of 
Bohn, A. D. 1854, London). 

ι2.) Chrystal’s Vol. I. of Vrcaea, pages 257, 258. 


6 Introductory Matter. 


nN $< 


trine, discipline, rite and custom of the middle ages and of modern times, and 
to perfect and unite the Church again. God grant it for the sake of our sole 
and all sufficient Intercessor and Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. 


In times after the Six Councils, that is in the eighth century and the ninth, 
we shall find ignorant and idolatrous women like the Empresses Irene and Theo- 
dora doing all they can to corrupt and idolatrize the Church, as Jezebel and 
Athaliah had tried to do the same for the Mosaic Church before them. Indeed, 
Constantius and Valens, the Emperors, had tried to wreck it by Arianism, even 
in the fourth century, though their efforts signally failed. 


But, on the other hand, the Emperor Constantine had been a nursing Sather 
to it (Isaiah xlix., 23), in calling the Council of Nicaea, and in putting the 
public vehicles at the service of the Bishops, in enforcing their attendance, and 
in aiding the efforts of the sound Bishops at it and for some time after, though 
his latest course was darker. So Theodosius I. had been a xursing father to it 
in convoking the Second Ecumenical Council, in gathering Bishops to it, and in 
enforcing its decrees as is the duty of the civil powers always and everywhere; 
for as God’s ministers they are bound as the merely secular, and therefore subor- 
dinate power, always to help the spiritual and therefore the higher ministry, 
and to enforce its decisions, and to take away the Churches from all idolatrous 
episcopal successions, and from all successions which permit idolatry or infi- 
delity in their pale, and to give them to the sound successions which crush out 
those sins by depositions and excommunications, as Constantine took away the 
Churches from Arian prelates who were, on their own professions, creature- 
invokers and so creature-servers; and as Theodosius the Great, took away Churches 
from the heretics who invoked the Holy Ghost asa creature, and so, on their 
own profession, were creature-servers. 


And now Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. gather the Metropolitans of 
the Christian world and fit suffragans in a Third Council, and force them to be 
present. And they come to decide all matters before them, with the Christ- 
promised aid of the Holy Ghost. 


And let us well remember that the Emperor Constantine did not at Nicaea 
usurp the functions of the Episcopate, but recognizing the fact that hisown min- 
istry was in the temporals only, while theirs was in the spirituals, when he en- 
tered the Council, as Eusebius tells us in his 7.275 of Constantine, Book IIL., 
Chapter X. (Bagster’s translation), ‘‘ At first he remained standing, and when 
a low chair of wrought gold had been set for him, he waited until the Bishops 
had beckoned to him, and then sat down;’’ surely an edifying spectacle of hu- 
mility and of proper deference for the due prerogatives, Christ-given, of God’s 
ministers. Oh! that it may ever be so on the part of the temporal powers 
towards every God-alone-invoking ‘and Orthodox Episcopate; and towards no 
other. For we are commanded not even to eat with an idolatrous brother (4), , 
and so, much less with an idolatrous Bishop, that is, Apostle. And Christ impli- 
edly commends the Church of Ephesus for clinging to their own Bishop, that is 


(Aan τοῦ: ν; Lie 


Imperial Decree Convoking the Council 7 


Angel, that is Messenger of Christ to them, and for rejecting false apostles; for 
in Rev. ii., I, 2, we read: 

“Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, write: These things saith he 
that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the 
seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works and thy labor, and thy patience, 
and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; azd thou hast tried them 
which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars.” 


For it is not enough for any Bishop to have a lineal ta¢tual succession and 
ordination from the Apostles. He must hold to all Orthodox truth also, and be 
free from the sin of worshipping anything but God. No man doubts that the 
Bishops of the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites had a ta¢tual suc- 
cession from the Apostles. But they were all creature-worshippers, and so erred 
on fundamentals. And so they were justly deposed by the Six Ecumenical 
Councils, and since that their ordinations were ever deemed invalid, so that 
when they came over to the Universal Church they were always reordained. 
Rome alone, but only in later times, has admitted-their orders as valid, but 
contrary to the plain decisions of the Six Synods of the Christian world. Her 
aim is to gain retainers in the East. But her plan will result finally in failure. 


There is a good deal abroad of what may be termed the heresy of holding 
that a mere tactual succession, without holding to the doctrine of the Six Coun- 
cils, constitutes a valid succession. Quite a number of the more ignorant or 
partisan clergy of the Anglican Communion hold it, consciously or uncon- 
sciously. The Greeks, though idolaters, nevertheless hold to the decisions of 
the VI. Councils on such matters, though most of them seem to be unaware 
that their paganism of creature-invocation, image-worship and relic-worship 
are condemned by those God-guided decisions. 


But to return to the document here following. The Emperor Theodosius 
II. was, as we shall see further on, a favorer of Nestorius and an enemy of ‘St. 
Cyril of Alexandria, and of the Orthodox. Yet he had done well in convoking 
the Council. And the Synod recognizes his kindness on that matter, towards 
the very beginning of its First Act. For when one stated to the Conncil that 
the Holy Synod had been convened by the Emperors, and that he had the 
papers on that and other matters, at the service of the Council, we read that, 


‘‘Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said, Let the dear-to-God Letter of our 
most religious and Christ-loving Emperors, which was written to each of the 
Metropolitans, be read, and let it shine forth in front of the Records of the 
Actions of the present time.’’? Hence we put it here. Act I. proceeds, 

(ΤῸ was at once brought forward by the most religious Peter, Presbyter of 
Alexandria, and read as follows: 


“DECREE OF THE EMPERORS CONVOKING THE THIRD 
COUNCEIE. 
‘The Autocrats, Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Victors, 
‘Trophy-bearers, Greatest, Ever-Revered, August Ones, to Bishop 
Cyril. 


8 Introductory Matter. 


“The condition of our Empire has been made dependent on piety 
towards God, azd the rest [of it] (5).’’ 


IV. 


SECOND DECREE OF THE EMPERORS, ADDRESSED TO THE BISHOPS 
OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 


The following is the document sent by Count Candidian to the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod, which Cyril, of Alexandria, in its first Act, speaks of as the 
“Second Decree’’ of the Emperors, which had been read to the Synod before 
that Session I. began, and which in that session is mentioned as urging them 
on to a decision on the matters for which they were convened. Cyril then pro- 
posed the reading of certain papers, ‘‘which,’’ he adds, ‘‘complete the whole 
statement as to the business before us.’’ It is not clear to me that this letter 
was among them. At any rate it was not read after that. 


The first imperial Decree was readin Act I. See that Act for the particu- 
iars. The following is the Second Imperial Letter. 


“A GODLY LETTER (6) SENT TO THE HOLY SYNOD THROUGE: 
CANDIDIAN, CHIEF OF THE BODY GUARDS, WHO WAS 
ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF PRESERVING 
GOOD ORDER IN THE SYNOD. 


“ΤῊ ς Autocrats, Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Victors, Pos- 
sessors of Trophies, Greatest, ever revered August Ones, to the 
Holy Synod. 

‘We have much care for all things which contribute to the com- 
mon welfare, but especially for those which relate to piety; and 
through them comes the supply of the rest of the good things to 
men. So, for that reason we wrote, a short time ago, those things 
which are proper in regard to your Godfearingness’ coming together 
into the metropolis of the Ephesians. And since it was a matter 
of necessary obligation that we should care for both the fitting good 


(5). See the rest of it below, a little after the Bishops’ names, in Act I. of 
the Council. | 

(6). Θεῖον γράμμα, literally, ‘‘divine letter,’’ a slavish, unchristian way of 
speaking, if taken in the common sense. But as it is best to take the charitable 
side, I have used ‘“‘godly,’’ because I presume it was used and understood in 
that sense by the author of the heading. 


Second Imperial Decree to the Council. 9 


order and quiet of your most Holy Synod in its investigations, we 
did not omit that either, so that its freedom from disorder has been 
guarded on every side. And though we are persuaded that your 
Godfearingness needs no outside aid in order to furnish peace to 
others also, nevertheless, it was a part of our concordant foresight 
for piety not to overlook even that thing. 

‘Therefore Candidian, the most magnificent Chief of the devoted 
Body Guards, has been commanded to go to your (7) Holy Synod, 
and [yet] not to take any part in the investigations which are to be 
made regarding dogmas, for it is a thing contrary to God’s law (8), 


(7). Coleti has here ‘‘our’’ (ἡμῶν), but the Editio Regia gives ‘“‘your’’ 
(ὑμῶν), which seems preferable, because that person is used by the Emperor else- 
where in this document. 

(8). ἀθέμιτον. This is the literal signification of this term here. That had 
been the doctrine of the Church from the beginning. The violation of it in the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in this country has resulted in doctrinal anarchy, 
and the relegating the Bishop, for the most part, to the position of a mere 
Moderator, a confirming and ordaining machine, and has wrecked that body. 
So that it is of small account, and claims in the whole United States, by one of 
its almanace for January, 1892, (the Living Church Quarterly, page 266), but 
531,535 communicants, out of a total population of about 65,000,000 of people. 
It permitted the innovation of a Lower House, composed of presbyters and of 
laymen, who have very few theological scholars among them, and yet actually 
sit as co-ordinate with Bishops, contrary to the New Testament, and to the Canons 
of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (the only ones that made canons), and to 
the custom of the whole Church from the beginning. It was definitely wrecked 
in A. D. 1871, when the House of Bishops, in the General Convention of that year 
attempted by their enactments to crush the idolatrous heresy of worshipping an 
alleged Real Presence of Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist, which was long ago 
condemned by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
It had been originated, in our time, in the Church of England by the heresi- 
archs Pusey and Keble, and was championed in the Lower House against the 
Bishops by James De Koven and others. That house, after a struggle, refused 
to coincide with the Bishops’ attempt to check and crush that form of idolatry, 
and having been wrongly made co-ordinate with the Upper House, so defeated 
it. Since that time it has been much more diffieult than it was even before to 
cieck any form of heresy or infidelity, so that many are now guilty of that 
so-t of idolatry and pagan sacrilege on the Lord’s Supper, of the pagan error of 
bowing relatively to the altar, to the cross, to images, etc. ; invoking the Virgin 
Mary and other saints; while others, disgusted with such forms of creature- 
worship, have fallen into another, that of Arianism, like R. Heber Newton, for 
example. Let this be a warning to us all not to permit any house of presbyters 
and laymen, but to give the sound Bishops that authority over both the spiritu- 


10 Introductory Matter. 


for any one who is not in the list of the most holy Bishops to mix 


alities and the temporalities which is given them in the New Testament and in 
the Ecumenical Canons. Those canons, so far as they received the approval of 
the whole Church, West and East, (and with the exception of some things in 
Canons on Constantinople’s rank nearly all of them have), were made with the 
Christ-promised aid of the Holy Ghost; whereas the co-ordinating of presbyters 
and laics with Bishops is a part of the mere irreligious, and, often, anti-Chris- 
tian, democratic Windbagism of modern times, which has given us one of the 
most extravagant and corrupt governments the world has ever seen; which does 
not even recognize Christianity in its Constitution, and, in our large cities, has 
resulted in the rule of the grog-shop and the brothel over the Church; of vicious 
and plundering rings and their heelers over virtuous men, and in an ignorant 
mass, largely composed of Romish Irish, Italians, Polanders, Bohemians and 
such like, and their sons, and Christ-rejecting Jews, alien to us utterly, over 
intelligent Americans. Oh! when will this tyranny be overpast! When shall 
we have Christian, virtuous and intelligent government? Will the night of our 
present slavery in our own land last for centuries? Or shall rational, Christian 
freedom soon dawn on us, when the glorious King of Kings and Lord of Lords 
shall set up his perfect government of virtue and holiness on this earth, and the 
evil who now so often rule us become our servants (Rev. xx., I-7)? Newman 
in a writing specially on the topic of the Protestant Episcopalian system of 
making presbyters in a Lower House (the Church Taught, Ecclesia Doé¢ta, or 
Ecclesia Discens) co-ordinate with Bishops (the Church Teaching, Ecclesia 
Docens), has well condemned it as an anti-Catholic novelty; and so has Pusey, 
on page 25, and after, of his Councils of the Church. Creature-worshipping 
heresiarchs as they were, as were Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius and his teachers 
Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, nevertheless, like them, amidst 
all their errors they well contended for some truth. I quote Pusey as above: 


“Tf faithful, Bishops have, by virtue of Christ’s promise, a Presence in 
Synod beyond what attends their ordinary acts. Why should this seem a 
strange thing to believe? Nothing is outwardly changed by the inward Pres- 
ence of God. Accordingly, until the unhappy precedent, made in very evil 
times by the Church of the United States, when struggling for life, the question 
of lay-representation was consistently confined to bodies who rejected the Apos- 
tolic succession, the Continental reformers, and the dissenters in Great Britain. 
It must be said plainly, that the precedent set in the United States is radically 
wrong, and, in fact, is, so far, the adoption of a principle belonging to bodies 
who reject the Apostolic succession and the whole principle of a deposit of 
faith, and of a commission, transmitted from the Apostles and part of the mind 
of Christ. * * * She has abandoned a bulwark of the faith, a function of 
the office inherited by her Bishops, not the faith itself nor the Apostolic succes- 
sion. ‘Through our neglect she became what she became; aud we owe her there- 
fore not sympathy only, but a respectful and humble sorrow. Still, while we 
own our own share in the sin, and that through God’s mercy alone we have 
been preserved, it were thanklessness for our own mercies, not to own, that she 


Second Imperial Decree to the Council. 11 


himself up with those ecclesiastical consultations; and he (9) is com- 
manded by all means to remove from the same city those laymen (10) 
and monks, who are already collected there on account of that affair, 
and those who shall be gathered; and that for the very reason that 
it does not behoove that those who are not at all needed at the exam- 
ination regarding dogma, should excite tumults (11) and thereby be 
α hindrance to the peaceful deciding and formulating by your Holi- 
ness of those things which should be decided and formulated. And 
he is commanded to take care that no discord arising from hostile 
feeling shall extend too far; in order that the examination by your 
Holy Synod be not hindered by it, and that the accurate search 
regarding the truth be not drowned by the disorderly din which may 
perhaps occur [in the Council]; and he is to see to it that each one 
shall hear forbearingly the things said, and put forward what shall 
seem good to himself, or oppose the opinion of another; and that so 
by proposition, and solution [of it] (12), the investigation regarding 
the true dogma may be settled without any trouble, and may receiv 
by the common vote of your Holiness, a formulated Definition which 
shall be both unfactious and pleasing to all (13). And as a primary 
thing, the same most magnificent man Candidian is commanded by 
our Serenity to by, all means see to it that no one of your most holy 


has undergone loss. * * * Itis plain, then, that in the future history of the 
Church, either we must be the instrument of God in upholding their faith, or 
they, if we enter into closer relations with them, will lower ours. Not then in 
reproach, but in self defence it was said, that a Church which had * * * 
bracketted the Nicene [Creed], was no model to be safely copied.”’ 


(g). Candidian. 


(το). τοὺς κοσμικούς, literally ‘‘worldly men,” as distinguished from the clergy 
and from monks; hence, as we say in English, /aymen. 


(11). Θορύβους, which means wproars, and ¢umults. 


(12). κατὰ πρότασίν τε καὶ λύσιν; which may, perhaps, be rendered ‘‘ dy ques- 
tion or answer,” or “by proposition, and answer to i.” 

(13.) The use of the expression wnfaétious (ἀστασίαστόν) is, perhaps, evi- 
dence of the influence of Nestorius on the mind of the Emperor, for, to gain 
his own ends, he would naturally represent the Orthodox as a faction only. 

The folly of the Emperor, in hoping to secure a unanimous verdict from 
creature-serving and unbelieving heretics like Nestorius and his party, and 
the Orthodox Cyril and his, is evident from this language. When oil and 
water mix, and truth and error, then there can be agreement between Ortho- 
doxy and heresy, anti-creature service and creature service, but not till then. 


12 Introductory Matter. 


Synod shall leave the place appointed for making the examination, 
whether it be on the plea of returning homewards, or of wishing to 
come to our godly court, or because he prefers to go elsewhither; 
Lor, moreover, may any other ecclesiastical question not pertaining 
to the aforesaid examination of holy dogma, be at all put forward 
(whether any persons ask such question, or the affair spring up in 
any way whatsoever by any one, ) before all the dispute on them at- 
ter in question be settled, and the things which are profitable towards. 
the true investigation be accurately searched into and receive a ter- 
mination which shall agree with the Orthodox religion. 

‘‘ Moreover, let your Godfearingness know, that it has seemed 
good to our Serenity, that no accusation in regard to money or crime 
(14) be brought forward against any one, either in your Holy Synod, 
or in a public Court of Justice there (15); if any one perchance may 
think of doing so; but all the examination of those matters is to be 
celebrated in the city of great name (16). And the most magnificent 
man Irenaeus will go with Nestorius the most dear-to-God Bishop 
of this city of great name (17), but only for the sake of friendship, 


(14). Coleti Conc., tome iii., col. 989, at the bottom: Tvwworétw δὲ ὑμῶν ἡ 
Θεοσέβεια, δεδόχϑαι τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γαληνότητι, μηδεμίαν ἢ Ext τῆς ἁγίας ὑμῶν συνόδου, ἢ καὶ ἕν 


, bd / / aN n 9 “ ἊΝ Ἂ are ἘΞ Ξ "2: Joe, Ww) VES 
δημοσίῳ αὐτόϑιε δικαστηρίῳ χρηματικὴν ἢ ἐγκληματικὴν κατά τινος κινηϑῆναι αἰτίασιν, εἰ τινί 


τυχὸν ταὑτην εἶναι συμβαίνοι" πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν περὶ τούτων διάγνωσιν συγκροτηϑῆναι κατὰ τὴν 
μεγαλώνυμον πόλιν. The Latin in the parallel column in Coleti translates 
συγκροτηϑῆναι by ‘veservatam,” “reserved,”’ showing, as, indeed, the Greek in 


effect does, that all accusations as to civil and as to criminal cases (and under 
one of these came accusations of heresy), must be reserved for Constantinople 
to decide; and whether this means that Nestorius was to be judge alone, or 
with the Emperor, or that the Emperor alone was to be the arbiter, it amounted 
to the same thing, for all things would be decided by Nestorian influence, for 
the Emperor was under his influence, as documents from him show. So that 
as charges could be trumped up against any Bishop, and he could be deposed 
against justice by the Nestorian party there, this clause contains a covert threat 
against every Orthodox Bishop. The Latin of it in Coleti reads as follows: 
Quin et hujus quoque admonita sit vestra pietas, nempe, serenitati nostrae 
visum esse, ut nulla omnino in sacra vestra synodo, aut etiam in publico Ephes- 
jorum judicio, pecuniaria aut criminalis causa ‘adversus aliquem agitetur. 
Quod si quid ejusmodi extiterit, cuipiamve usu venerit, hujus integram cog- 
nitionem magnae huic nostrae civitati reservatam volumus, 


(15). Ephesus. 
(16). Constantinople. 


(17). Constantinople. 


Second Imperial Decree to the Council. 13 


and he is not to take part in the investigations made by your most 
Holy Synod, nor moreover may he, on any account, take part in 
those matters which are entrusted to the most glorious man, Candi- 
dian, who is sent by us’’ (18). 


(18). The Irenaeus here meant is the notorious Count Irenaeus, the friend 
and partisan of Nestorius, who, at Ephesus, did all he could to nullify the action 
of the Orthodox Council against him. Venables’ article on /venaeus, in Smith 
and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, is simply infamous in its injus- 
tice to the Orthodox and in its favoritism towards the Nestorians. He was 
probably sent, notwithstanding the Emperor’s statements regarding him above, 
as the lay theological helper of Nestorious and his error, as Count Candidian, 
as a mere soldier, was to help him in merely military matters by using, as he 
did, the soldiers of his command against the Synod and for Nestorius. The 
appointment of Irenaeus was probably secured by Nestorius and his party to 
coimpass their ends. That would be the more easy because the weak Theodo- 
sius II. was so much under Nestorius’ influence. 


Venables, in his bilious and utterly prejudiced account, shows that, not- 
withstanding what the misguided Emperor writes of Irenaeus’ going to 
Ephesus only as a friend of Nestorius, and notwithstanding the fact that Theo- 
dosius II. writes to the Council that “276 zs not to take part in the investiga- 
tions made by your most Holy Synod, nor, moreover, may he on any account 
take part in those matters which are entrusted to the most glorious man, Candi- 
dian, who 15 sent by us,’’ he does become a chief actor regarding the affairs of 
the Council, for even Venables writes that when, five days after the righteous 
deposition by the Ecumenical Council of the denier of the Incarnation, the 
Man-Worshipper (ὁ ἀνϑρωπολάτρης) Nestorius, as the ancients justly termed 
him, the approach of John of Antioch and the Bishops of his patriarchate, all of 
them partisans of the heresiarch, was announced, ‘‘Irenaeus, accompanied by a 
guard of soldiers, hurried out to apprise them of the * * * proceedings of the 
Council. He was followed, at an interval, by deputies from the Council, who, as 
Memnuon relates, were, at the Count's instigation, maltreated by the soldiers, and 
prevented from having an audience with John, (Labbe, ibid, [that is, his edition 
of the Councils] 764; Mercator II., praef. xxvii. )’’ 

That is impartiality and non-interference with a vengeance! 

But that is not all, for Venables goes on to show, but with many prejudiced 
assertions added, that the small faction of Nestorian Bishops at Ephesus, who, 
with John of Antioch, had the brazen-faced effrontery to call themselves the 
Council, deputed this very Irenaeus to Constantinople to the Emperor to get 
him to undo the Holy-Ghost-led work of the Third Ecumenical Council, and 
to recognize their own little conventicle and its heretical acts instead; and Ven- 
ables shows how near he came to attaining his evil aim at one time by his mis- 
representations, addressed to the weak and vacillating, and probably then 
heretical Theodosius II.; but he was finally defeated by the representatives of 
the Orthodox Synod. To speak of such a man as taking no part in the pro- 


fut 
bh 


Introductory Matter. 


ceedings of the Council, is therefore ajoke. For he did his utmost, by such 
misrepresentation as amounted to lying, to persuade the poor stick of an Em- 
peror that a mere handful of Bishops, separated from the Church and its doc- 
rine, were the Third Council. On his statement, and the saying of such as he, 
Cyril was persecuted by the deceived Emperor. At last, however, Irenaeus’ 
outrageous iniquity was exposed, and he was stripped of all his honors, his 
property was confiscated, and he was deported to Petra in Arabia. There he 
spent his time in composing a work which bore the title, Zhe Tragedy of 
Ireenaeus, which we have, at least in part, at this hour. Τί 15 8 glorification of 
Nestorius, his partisans and their heresy. 

At the expiration of his twelve years of banishment, under the patronage of 
the bitter Nestorian, Theodoret, he was made, we know not why, Metropolitan 
of Tyre in that patriarchate of Antioch which had been the source and chief 
seat of the Nestorian heresy, where, indeed, it seems, to some extent at least, 
though perhaps in a slightly modified form, to have been retained by many, 
even as late as that event. But objection arose at once. Domnus, Bishop of 
Antioch, had consecrated him; but the Orthodox at Constantinople uttered their 
protest, justly ‘‘asserting that the election of a convicted heretic and a digamus 
was 7250 facto null and void, and charging him under severe threats to proceed 
to a fresh election.’”? Domnus, who was perhaps never fully Orthodox, though 
to save his honors and to avoid deposition he had professed, after a long strug- 
gle, to be so, applied to the heretic, Theodoret, the best scholar of the Nestorian 
party, for help to defend his act. Theodoret took up his pen for the view that 
a twice married man may be lawfully made a Christian Bishop, and against the 
general opinion of Christians from the beginning, and against what the common 
sense of the Church had always held, and still holds, to be the true meaning of 
I. Timothy, iii., 2, that is, that among the qualifications of a Bishop, he can 
never have been married more than once, (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), “ husband of 
[but] ove wife.” The same qualification is demanded of the deacon in 1 Tim- 
othy, iii., 12, and again of the E/der (used as synonomous with Szshop), in Titus 
i., 6; compare verse 7 there. Compare the precisely similar expression used of 
a widow in I. Timothy, v., 9, that she shall have been ‘‘the wife of [but] one 
man’? (γεγονυῖα ἑνὺς ἀνδρὸς yuri); where no one would suppose a prohibition of 
polyandry, or of being the wife of two or more men at one time, but a forbid- 
ding to put any but a monogamous widow on the list of the Church for support. 
So, by parity of reasoning, the precisely similar expression in I. Timothy, ili., 2, 
“husband of [but] one wife,” is not a prohibition of a man having two wives 
at the same time, but of his ever having been married more than once. 

The ablest modern Protestant commentators, like Bp. Ellicott and the con- 
tinuator of Olshausen so interpret those passages. 

Van Osterzee, in Lange’s Commentary on that place, writing on the words 
“husband of one wife,” gives, first, the view of those who understand that ex- 
pression to prohibit nothing but polygamy, and then he gives the reply of those 
who took it ‘‘as forbidding any man who had been married more than once to 
be a Bishop, or Elder, or Deacon.” I quote his statement of the latter view, 
which is really that of the Universal Church embodied in its law and practice. 


Second Imperial Decree of the Council. 15 


‘The champions of the other view maintain that Timothy hardly needed 
the warning not to choose an episcopus who had several wives, since the unfit- 
ness of so sensual a man for this spiritual office would be self-evident; that, on 
the other hand, a second marriage might not have been approved by the Greeks, 
that Paul did not prescribe this abstinence as a general rule (the opposite is clear 
from I. Cor., vii., 8, 39), but that this [law] may rightly have been enjoined on 
such officers, who were to set an example of the highest self-restraint; and that, 
finally, in chap. v., 9, it is required of a widow, chosen as deaconess, to have 
been once only married.’’ Wan Oosterzee adds, ‘‘the last reason seems of the 
greatest weight; and we therefore agree with those who hold this command of 
Paul to be directed against asecond marriage, as unseemly for the Episcopal 
office.’’ So Bloomfield takes it in his Greek Testament. 


More Protestant testimonies, to the same purport, might be added, did space 
permit; but these must suffice. 


There was a notion among some in the ancient Church that a digamist 
might be ordained, provided his two marriages did not occur after his baptism. 
But the Apostle Paul’s language in the texts above quoted excludes every diga- 
mist from the ministry, and that law, always the common one, finally prevailed 
every where. 


The historical testimony is given in one edition of the Oxford translation of 
part of Tertullian (Oxford, Parker, A. D. 1854, pages 420-433); and in Ludlow’s 
article on Digamy in Smith and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Christian Antigut- 
ties. Compare his article Bigamy in the same work. 


Bingham, who, contrary to the Canons, married after taking presbyter’s 
orders, writes on the theme of clerical digamy, but with too much indulgence 
to digamists in his Antiguities, Book IV., Chapter V., Sections 1 to 5. His own 
position as so far irregular would, we might suppose, naturally incline him to 
the loose view on I. Timothy iii., 2. His marriage is mentioned on page xxi. 
of the Prolegomena in Volume I. of the Oxford ten-volume edition of A. D. 
1855 of his entire works. 


But to return to the digamist Irenaeus. Theodoret’s defence of the notion 
that a man twice married may be a Bishop, was unavailing. The sequel is told 
by Venables himself in the same article. He shows that Irenaeus was Bishop 
in A. D. 446; but he did not hold the office long. For he adds: ‘‘An edict was 
issued’? [by the Emperor Theodosius II.] ‘‘(February 17, A. D. 448), renewing 
those formerly published against the Nestorians, which, after commanding that 
all their writings should be burnt, and making the possession of any of them a 
capital offence, proceeded, in order to prove his detestation of these doctrines, 
to order that Irenaeus, who, though he had previously incurred his displeasure 
on that account, and was, moreover, a digamus, had, he knew not how, got 
ordained Bishop of Tyre, should be deposed from his see and deprived of the 
dress and title of priest, and be compelled to live as a layman in his own coun- 
try, and never set foot again in Tyre. * * * Photius was made Bishop of Tyre, 
September 9, 448. After this Irenaeus disappears entirely from the scene.”’ 


16 Introductory Matter. 


There is more contained in this document than appears at first 
sight. 

For, 1. It practically put into the hands of Candidian, a sym- 
pathizer with Nestorius, the Man-Server, the control of the business 
of the Synod. And he could so arrange it that Nestorian paganiz- 
ing should triumph there by the aid of secular power, as Arianism 
had at Arles, Milan and Ariminum by the same sort of help; for 
Candidian in connection with Nestorius could so manage matters 
that the Orthodox Bishops should be worn out by interminable dis- 
cussions, or be forced to leave from lack of funds, and then when 
the Synod had been depleted, and he knew that by his tricks he had 
secured a majority he could put his heresies to vote and make them 
the creed of the Church. 


2. Besides the reservation of all civil and criminal accusations 
to Constantinople, under one of which heresy could be included, 
would enable Nestorius and his party to throw out any accusation of 
heresy against any of themselves; and the more easily because the 
Hmperor’s command to decide the faith first could readily be so inter- 
preted by them and their friends as to exclude any accusation against 
them till it had been settled, and with the guiding reins of the Coun- 
cil in their own hands, and with permission refused to any of the 
Orthodox Bishops to go to Constantinople to the Emperor, and with 
the way thither, so to speak, in the hands of Candidian (and we know, 
from what occurred after Act I. of the Ecumenical Synod, how 
ready he was to choke them off from any appeal to the Court for 
common fairness and justice), and with the soldiers at Ephesus 
under the orders of Candidian and his fellow partizans of Nestorius, 
we see in what evil case the Orthodox would have been had they 
submitted to the provisions of this crafty letter. 


Cyril was a man of firmness, raised up by God for this occasion, 
and the Orthodox Bishops of the Third Council stood by him and 
with him for God’s truth, and the country and the city people of 
Memnon’s jurisdiction, stood up for them and it, and must have, to 
some extent, awed Candidian and the Nestorians by their very num- 
ber into abstaining from much of violence and injustice. 


So the people of Milan had stood up for Ambrose against the 
attempt of Justina, the Emperor Valentinian II.’s mother, to take 


Second Imperial Decree to the Council. 1ἢ 


one of the Churches of the Orthodox in Milan for the Arian worship, 
and so afterwards the people of England stood up for their Bishops 
and Church against James II.’s attempts to Romanize and idolatrize 
their Church and State, and so to corrupt and ruin both. 


Few things in the history of Christ’s Church are nobler than 
the stand of Cyril of Alexandria, Memnon of Ephesus, and the rest 
of the 200 Bishops of the Third Council of the whole of Christen- 
dom against the design and the misguided and despotic action of an 
absolute monarch, by his agent Count Candidian, to control the 
Synod, for heresy, and to keep them from doing their duty to God 
and to His truth. "They were weak and defenceless, save in God’s 
blessed help. Their opponent was an Autocrat who had at his 
mercy their homes, their churches, their liberties, and their lives. 
And the man whom he sent to carry out his wishes against God’s 
truth was the commander of his Household Troops, and at his beck 
and nod was a military force capable of crushing all their resist- 
ance. Yet they did resist that soldier who would have controlled 
them and interfered with their freedom and with their work. His 
own witness tells how nobly they did it. For when John of Antioch 
reached Ephesus and held a conventicle against the Ecumenical 
Synod, ‘‘ Count Candidian’’ appeared before them, his friends, and 
‘‘related how Cyril and his friends’’ [that is the Ecumenical Coun- 
cil], “‘in spite of all warnings, and in opposition to the Imperial 
Decrees’’ [this Second Decree especially], ‘‘ had held a session five 
days before, had contested his (the Count’s) right to be present,”’ 
etc. (Hefele’s History of the Church Councils, English translation, 
Volume III., page 56). Cyril and the Council resisted a layman's 
misguided usurpation of Bishops’ Christ-given rights, and so saved 
the faith and the Church. Well, therefore, and with the best of rea- 
son, did the Bishops of the Fourth Ecumenical Council shout together 
‘“« Eternal be the memory of Cyril.’’ For not only did he, under God, 
save the Faith at Ephesus and safeguard then the Church against 
the incoming waves of Denial of the Incarnation, and its sequence 
the Nestorian worship of a mere man by bowing, invocation, and by 
the other acts of religious service, but he also guided the three Keu- 
mencial Councils, which were held after the Third, against those and 
kindred errors. Indeed, a part of the Definition of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council is in his very words. 


1ὃ Introductory Matter. 


In some things there is a parallelism in the noble record of San- 
croft, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Six English Bishops who: 
stood with him, on the one hand, and the record of Cyril, Arch- 
bishop of Alexandria, and the rest of the 200 Bishops of the Third 
Synod on the other; for both sets of prelates contended against the 
same sin, that is against creature-service (χτισματολατρέια); Cyril and the 
Council contending against the Nestorian worship of a mere man 
(aowzodatpeta), and hence of course of a mere creature; whereas. 
the seven English prelates contended against a lower form of mazn- 
service, that is the worship of the Virgin Mary and the saints, and 
against a lower form of creature-service, that is the worship of angels 
forbidden in Rev. xxii., 8, 9, and in Colos. ii., 18. For surely Christ’s. 
humanity is confessed by all to be the highest and best of all created 
things, and if we may not worship that creature, much less can we 
any other. Both therefore contended for the first law of all true 
religion laid down by our Great Lawgiver, Himself, ‘‘ Thou shalt 
bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,’’ Matt. iv., το. 


2. Both at the peril of their honors, property and lives resisted 
an unorthodox tyrant. 


3. Cyril and Memnon were imprisoned for their action and so 
were the seven English prelates. 


4. Both sets of prelates excited the sympathies ana best efforts 
of Orthodox men which finally secured their release and the victory 
of the truth; Cyril and the Synod in Ephesus, Constantinople and 
elsewhere; the Seven English Monk-Bishops in all England, and in 
Scotland and Wales, and among the Reformed in Ireland. 


5. Both sets have ever since been held in honor by all sound 
men as resisters of evil, Confessors of the Faith, and, under God, 
its rescuers from appaling dangers. Eternal be the memory of 
them all! 


ΤΊ ΖΝ: 19 


μι ACTS OF THE HOLY, GREAT, THIRD 
ECUMENICAL SYNOD, HELD AT 
BPHESUS, οι: 


AG IVE: 


In (19) the Consulship of our Masters, Flavius Theodosius, Con- 
sul for the thirteently time, and Valentinian, Consul for the third 
time the ever August Ones (20), on the tenth day before the Kalends 


(19). The Greek here is, Meta τὴν ὑπατείαν τῶν Δεσποτῶν ἡμῶν, PAaviov Θεοδοσίου, 
etc. Peltan’s Latin translation, col., 1354, tome 1, of Hardouin’s Concilia has, 
Post Consulatum dominorum nostrorum, Flavit, etc. The old version, ac- 
cording to Coleti (Concil. Tome 3, col. g91, note), has ‘‘ Post Consulatu.”” The 
question is, does the Greek here mean that the Council began in the thirteenth 
Consulship of Theodosius the Second, or after it? Is the literal Greek, ‘‘ after 
the Consulship,’ an idiom for ‘‘ During,” that is ‘‘in the Consulship?”’ On 
page 181, of vol. 3, of the English translation of Hefele’s Hzstory of the Church 
Councils we see that scholars differ as to the meaning of that Greek idiom, some 
taking it in one of the above senses, others in the other. But a late edition of 
Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon gives instances where that construction some- 
times has the force of 7”, during, in the course of. So I take it here. 


(20). The Greek here is τὼν αἰωνίων Αὐγούστων, literally, ‘‘ ‘he eternal August 
Ones,” one of those ‘‘flattering titles’? which are rightly condemned in the Scrip- 
tures again and again. Pious men had to endure in the Church such relics of 
the pagan worship of the heathen Emperors. They should not be endured now. 
Such expressions smirch documents under the Roman Emperors. As Sophocles 
in his Greek Lexicon under αἰωνιότης states, the word ‘‘Hternity”’ was ‘‘a title 
given to the Emperor, or to the Empress. Chal. 829, A. Ἡ ἡμετέρα αἰἱωνιότης: 
[‘‘our Eternity,” literally] says Theodosius to Placidia.”’ 


But although custom and law favored the worship of the Emperors and the 
use of titles for those monarchs which should be given to no other than God 
alone, some faithful men at their own peril rebuked such sins; as, for instance, 
Jerome, ox Daniel iii., says that the sin is the same if men worship the Em- 
peror’s images as it was to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s. And St. Athanasius, in 
Section 3 of his Epistle on what was done in the Synod of Ariminum in Italy, 
and in that of Seleucia, in Isauria, censures the Arians for using the term αἰώνιον, 
that is Eternal of the Emperor Constantius. For, speaking of their inconsist- 
encies and faults, he there writes: 


20 Act I. of Ephesus 


““Besides, while pretending to write about the Master, they name another, 
Constantius, their own Lord; for it was he who bestowed on them this lordship 
of impiety. And those who deny that the Son is everlasting have called him 
Eternal Emperor. Such fighters against Christ are they, on behalf of impiety.”’ 
The Greek here in Bright’s St. Athanasius’ A/zstorical Writings, page 247, is as 
follows: 

Πρὸς τούτοις, περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου προσποιούμενοι γράφειν, ἄλλον ““ Δεσπότην ᾽᾽ ὀνομάζουσιν 
ξαυτοῖς Κωνστάντιον" αὐτὸς γάρ ἦν ὁ τὴν δυναστείαν τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτοῖς παρέχων" καὶ “ αἰώ- 
viov’? δὲ αὐτὸν ““βασιλέα"᾽ εἰρήκασιν οἱ τὸν Ὑἱὸν ἀΐδιον ἀρνούμενοι" οὕτως εἰσὶ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν 
“Χριστομάχοι. 

Athanasius, in effect, here states that the Arians used the strong term Lord 
(Δεσπότην) of Constantius, which denotes a more absolute mastery sometimes 
than Κύριος. For Liddell and Scott in their Greek Lexicon, Harpers, New 
York, 1850, under Κύριος, say: 

‘The head of a family, master of ahouse * * * was κύριος of wife and 
children, δεσπότης of slaves.”’ 


Yet, great as was the fame of Athanasius and his influence, only about sixty 
years after his death we find this word αἰώνιος, ‘‘ Hternal,”’ applied to the Emper- 
ors by the Scribe or Secretary who drew up the beginning of Act I. of the Third 
Ecumenical Council. So strong was the force, perhaps we may say the demand 
of custom, under the absolutism of Christian autocrats who still clung to blas- 
phemous pagan titles of their deified heathen predecessors. 


We even find that some of the Emperors, untaught and unterrified by the 
punishment of King Uzziah, for intruding into the place of the priests under the 
old law (2 Chron., xxvi., 16-22), did the same against the higher ministry of the 
new Law of Christ. But Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, nobly stood up against the 
abuse and sacrilege, as Azariah, the priest, and his fellow priests had stood up 
against Uzziah, and he rebuked the Emperor, Theodosius the Great, for it, and 
the Autocrat had the grace to submit to God’s law in the matter, and so honored 
himself and his memory (Gibbon’s Rome, chapter xx., note on page 368, vol. 
2, of Bohn’s seven volume edition, London, 1854). See Theodoret’s Eccl. Hist., 
V. 18. 

One of the best short accounts that I have seen of the deifying of the 
Roman Emperors is that given by Gibbon in chapter 3, pages 90 to 93, text and 
notes of vol. τ of that edition. See in his index, under Apotheosis, Emperors, 
etc. Oh! that the Emperors had remembered Herod’s fate for permitting men 
to give him a title which belonged to God only (Acts xii,, 22, 23). 


Under ‘‘ Θεῖος, a, ov, divine, as atitle,’’ we find that that term was applied 
to the Roman Emperor, to the Emperor’s letters, to his private matters, to his 
palace, etc ; and that even ‘‘ Divinity”? (Θειότης) was ‘‘a title applied to Kings 
and Emperors,’’ as, for instance, to ‘‘ Constantine and his sons,” “‘ their Divin- 
ity.’ See under those words in Sophocles. 


Possibly, as Sophocles implies, the term ‘‘dzvine’’ was used as an equiva- 
lent for, or in the sense of “‘zmperial,”’ and ‘Divinity’ in the sense of “ sacred- 
ness,” “sacred majesty,’ but the Christian West, with all its faults, revolted 


Names of the Bishops. 21 


of July (21), the Synod being assembled in the Metropolis of the 
Ephesians, in accordance with the decree of the most dear-to-God 
and Christ-loving Emperors, there sat down in the most holy Church, 
which is called the Mary (22), the [following] most dear-to-God, and 


against the use of “‘dzvine”’ and ‘‘ Divinity’’ of the Emperors and their wives 
and children; but as the Roman Empire continued in tie East for about a thou- 
sand years longer than it did in the West, this slavish and profane use of those 
two words for those dignitaries continued there for some time. The Church 
may be said to have had these things forced on her, by the Emperors in their 
pride and vanity, and by her unwise and time-serving sons, who should have 
rebuked that pagan use of terms, which had seemingly arisen from the heathen 
custom of defying their Emperors, and afterwards applying to them appella- 
tions which can be rightly applied to no other than God Himself, and which are 
His prerogative, and which it is evil to give in /¢heir original sense of really 
““divine’’ and ‘‘ Divinity’ to a creature whose breath is in his nostrils, and who 
will soon be judged by that God who is no respecter of persons. A Greek Arch- 
bishop once told me that the Greeks had suffered from the evil influence of the 
Empire, as the Westerns had suffered from the Pope of Rome. If it seem a 
slight thing to get rid of flattering terms, let any one consider how difficult it 
would have been in the middle ages, or in Henry the Eighth’s time in England, 
to refuse him or any other monarch any of his usual titles, whether he deserved 
them or not; and how, even in our day, even in this democratic country and 
age, we are expected to call every profane teacher of creature-service, and of 
heresy, Reverend, Most Rev., etc., and every Congressman Honorable even when 
we know him not to beso. The true remedy for this is to call men by the ¢z¢/es 
of their offices, and stop there; such as Emperor, President, Bishop, Elder or 
Presbyter, and Deacon, etc. In conclusion I would say that as the whole Church 
in Anathema VIII. of St. Cyril’s XII., adopted by the Third Synod, anathema- 
tizes every one who applies the name God to Christ’s separate humanity, much 
more does it by necessary implication anathematize every one who applies the 
word God, Divinity, or any other name of Jehovah to an Emperor or any other 
mere creature. But some writers of the Acts did not always obey that law. 

(τ) That is, June 22; 431. 

(22). Bingham, in his Aztzguzties of the Christian Church, Book VIII., 
Chapter IX., Sections 8 and 9, has shown that anciently from the beginning 
Christian Churches were always dedicated to God, and not to saints ; though 
sometimes a Church where a saint or martyr was buried, was distinguished in 
common parlance by his or her name from that fact. There was no such evil 
custom as existed later and exists now of calling many Churches after St. Peter- 
or St. Paul, or St. Mary, or any other saint. So it has been thought by some 
that the Virgin Mary was actually buried in this Church, called ‘‘the Mary”? 
[Church], or it would not, in that early age, have been so named. I will treat 
of that point in a separate Dissertation, and will endeavor to give such fa¢ts as 
are accessible. In Section το, id., Bingham has shown that all altars were con- 
secrated to God, none to any saint or other creature. 


22 Ac A, of Ephesus. 


most devout Bishops, namely: 

Cyril of Alexandria, who filled the place (23) of Celestine 
also (24), the most holy and most devout Archbishop (25) of the 
Church of the Romans (26); and 


Alas! that we find the abomination of altars to creatures in Latin Churches 
now, as for instance to Mary. 

Alas! also that we find the Latins devoting a month every year to Mary, a 
mere creature! And that too when God tells us to bow to God and to serve Him 
alone (Matt. iv., 10); and when the Third Ecumenical Synod adopted the VIIIth 
of Cyril’s XII. Anathemas, which is so strong against man-worship; and whea 
the Fifth Ecumenical Synod set forth its I[Xth Anathema, against that error, 
and so both those Councils of the whole Church impliedly cursed all creature- 
service, and anathematized all guilty of it. 

(23). Or ‘discharged the duties of the place. 

(24). Kupiadov ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, διέποντος καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ ὁσιωτάτου 
ἀρχιεπισκόπου τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας ἹΚελεστίνου. 

The “‘a/so’’ here means that Cyril not only representea his own See of Alex- 
andria, but also that of Rome. ‘The language is similar to that used of Flavian 
of Philippi below, who represented not only his own See of Philippi, but also that 
of Thessalonica. 

(25). On this term ‘‘Archbishop,’’ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, Ἐ, A., Sophocles, in his 
Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, remarks: ‘‘In the fourth 
and fifth centuries this title was given to the Bishops of Alexandria, Rome, 
Antioch, and Constantinople; in the sixth century, also to the Bishop of Jeru- 
salem; and in the seventh, to that of Cyprus.’? They were what the word lit- 
erally means, ‘‘chief Bishops,” for each was autocephalous, and had a separate 
set of suffragans, and a separate territory under him. 

(26). According to the learned Bingham, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
Rome, at the First Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 325, was the seven provinces of 
South Italy, and the three islands—Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, at the most. 
See his Antiq., Book IX., Chap. I., Sections 9-12. 

Gradually, however, it was extended as the centuries rolled on, till finally 
it included all Western Christendom. But it grew only in times of ignorance, 
and later on of idolatry, but by usurpation and contrary to the Canons of the 
First Four Ecumenical Councils, so that as the Revelations teaches, Rome was 
able to make all nations drink of the ‘‘ golden cup’? of the “abominations and 
filthiness of her fornication’? (Rev. xvii., 4), that is of her spiritual whoredom 
of invoking the Virgin Mary and saints, of the worship of images, painted and 
graven, crosses, etc., relics, and the worship of an alleged real presence of the 
actual substance of Christ’s Liviuity in the Eucharist, which St. Cyril, approved 
by the Third Synod, teaches, is not there at all. But it never included the East- 
ern Church, which remained subject to its own patriarchal and autocephalous 
thrones of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, etc. Still 
Rome helped to corrupt the Greeks by giving her strength to the image-wor- 
shipping party among them before the break. 


Names of the Bishops. 23 


Juvenal of Jerusalem; and 
Memnon of the [Metropolis of the] Ephesians; and 


Flavian of Philippi, who held the place of Rufus also (27), the 
most reverent Bishop of [the Metropolis of] the Thessalonians; and 


Theodotus of Ancyra in the First Galatia; and 

Firmus of Caesarea, in Cappadocia Prima; and 

Acacius of Melitene in Armenia; and 

Iconius of Gortyna in Crete; and 

Perigenes [or, ‘‘ Peregrinus’’] of Corinth in Greece; and 
Cyrus of Aphrodisias in Caria; and 

Valerian of Iconium; and 

Hesychius of Parium; and 

Hellanicus of Rhodes; and 

Donatus of Nicopolis in Old Epirus; and 

Eucharius of Dyrrachium in New Epirus; and 

Perecius [or, ‘‘ Perrebius’’] of Pharmalus; and 
Eudoxius of Choma in Lycia; and 

Silvanus of Chaeretapa [or Chaeretopus] in Phrygia; and 
Berinianus of Perga in Pamphylia; and 

Amphilochius of Sida in Pamphylia; and 

Epiphanius of Cratia in Honorias; and 

Gregory of Cerasus in Pontus Polemoniacus; and 
Prothymius of Comana [or ‘‘of Cacona’’]; and 


Palladius of Amasia in Helenopontus, [or ‘‘in Hellespontus’’]; 
and 
Senecio of Codra [or ‘‘of Scodra’’] and 


Dalmatius of Cyzicus; and 

Acacius of Arca; and 

Docimasius of Maronia in Thrace; and 

John of Proeconnesus; and 

Daniel of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda; and 
Romanus of Rhaphia; and 


(27). See note 24 above. 


24 Act Δ of Ephesus. 


Paulianus of Maiuma [‘‘of Gaza,”’ or, ‘‘in Gaza,’’ the Latin adds. 
The place, according to Bingham, ‘‘ /udex of Episcopal Sees,’’ at the 
end of Book IX. of his Antiégudties, was ‘‘in Palestina Prima’’]; and 


Paul of Anthedon; and 

Fidus of Joppa; and 

Aeanus [or ‘‘John’’] of Sycamazon; and 

Theodore of Gadara; and 

Letoius of Libyas; and 

Ampela [or, ‘‘Theodulus’’] of Elusa; and 

Theodore of Aribela [or ‘‘of Arbela,’”’ or ‘‘of Arbdela,’’ or of 
** Aribdila’’]; and 

Peter of Parembola; and 

John of Augustopolis; and 

Saida of Phaenes; and 

Rufinus of Tabze; and 

Anysius of Thebze; and 

Callicrates [or ‘‘ Halicrates’’] of Naupactus; and 

Domnus of Opus; and 

Nicias of Megara; and 

Agathocles of Colonia (28); and 


Felix of Apollonia and of Bellias [or ‘‘and of Hellias,’’ or ‘‘and 
of Cecellis’’]; and 


Theodore of Dodone; and 

Cyril of Pyli, [or ‘‘of Pylae’’] in the Chersonesus; and 
Anderius of Chersonesus in Crete; and 

Paul of Lampa [or ‘‘of Lappa’’]; and 

Zenobius of Gnossus; and 

Lucian of Toperus [or “οἵ Toperius’’] in Thrace; and 
Ennepius of Maximianopolis; and 

Secundianus of Lamia, [or ‘‘of Lama,’’ or ‘‘of Lame’’]; and 
Dion of Thebae in Thessaly; and 


(28). There were several places of the name of Colonia. One is mentioned 
above. ‘That was in Cappadocia Secunda. Where this last one was is not speci- 
fied in the text. The word in Latin means a ‘‘Colony.”’ 


Names of the Bishops. 25 


Theodore of Echinaeus; and 

Martyrius of Helistri; and 

Thomas of Derbe, [or, ‘‘of Zerba’’ or ‘‘ Zerbe’’]; and 
Athanasius of Parosithus; and 

Themistius of Jassus; and 

Aphthonetus of Heraclea; and 

Philetus of Amazon; and 

Apella of Cibyrrha; and 

Spudasius of Cerami, [or ‘‘of Ceramus’’]; and 
Archelaus of Myndus; and 

Phanias of Harpasa; and 

Promachius of Alinda; and 

Philip of Pergama in Asia; and 

Maximus of Cuma; and 

Dorotheus of Myrrhina; and 

Maximus of Assos; and 

Aporus [or ‘‘ Kuporus’’] of Hypepa; and 
Alexander of Arcadiopolis; and 

Entychius of Theodosiopolis; and 

Rhodon of Palaeopolis; and 

Eutropius (29) of Aegea (30); and 

Aphobius of Colon (31) [or ‘‘of Colona’’]; and 
Nestorius of Sion (32); and 

Heracleon of Tralles, [or ‘‘of Trallis’’]; and 
Theodotus of Nyssa; and 

Theodore of Aninetum; and 

Timothy of Briula; and 

Theodosius of Mastaura; and 

(29). The marginal note here, translated, is ‘‘ Eutropius of Etenae of Cinte; 


and Strategius of Andraponta,”’ or ‘‘of Andraponte’’ in Helenopontus, 
(30). The margin here has ‘‘Euaza,”’ or ‘‘ Euazae.”’ 


(31). The margin here reads, ‘‘Coloa,’’ or ‘‘Coloe.’”? The Latin is *‘ Col- 
onae,”’ in the genitive, which would give the nominative ‘‘ Colona”’ or ‘‘Colone.”’ 


(32). This see was in Asia Minor and suffragan to Ephesus. 


26 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Eutychius of Erythra; and 
Eusebius of Clazomenae; and 
Euthalius of Colophon; and 
Modestus of Anea (33); and 
Theodosius of Priene; and 
Eusebius of Magnesia; and 
Sapricius of Paphos in Cyprus; and 
Zeno of Curium (34); and 
Rheginus of Constantia (35); and 
Evagrius of Solif and 


Caesarius, a ‘‘Chorepiscopus,’’ [that is, as ‘*‘ Chorepiscopus”’ 
means, ‘‘a country Bishop’’]; and 


Tribonianus of Aspendus in Pamphylia; and 
Nunechius of Selga; and 

Solon of Carallia; and 

Acacius of Cotena; and 

Nesius (36) of Corybrassus; and 
Matidianus of Coracisia; and 
Nectarius of Synea (37); and 
Eutropius of Etena (38); and 
Taurianus of Lyrbae; and 
Eusebius of Aspona in Galatia; and 
Philumenus of Cinna; and 
Astrapetus (39); and 


Eusebius of Heraclea in Honorias; and 


(33). Or, according to the margin, ‘‘Arnea.”? See page 438, tome 5, of 
the editio Regia of the Coucilia, Paris, 1644. 


(34). Or ‘of Cyrium.’? The margin has ‘‘of Cyrene in Cyprus.”’ 
(35). Margin, ‘‘of Cattania.”’ 

(36). Or ‘‘ Nisius,’’ according to the Latin. 

(37). Margin “οἵ Sesennia,”’ or ‘‘of Sesennii,’’ 

(38). Or “οἵ Etenna,” or ‘of Etenni,” or “of Eteni.” 


(39). Neither the Greek nor the Latin gives anything more than the name 
here as above. I am here translating from page 438, of tome 5, of the Collectio 
Regia, or Editio Regia, Paris, A. D 1644. 


Names of the Bishops. 27 


Paralius of Andrapa on the Hellespont (40); and 
Silvanus of Ceratapa; and 
Hermogenes of Rhinocurura; and 
Evoptius of Ptolemais in Pentapolis; and 
Eusebius of Pelusium; and 
Eulogius of Terenuthis; and 
Adelphius of Onuphis; and 

Paul of Flavonia; and 
Phoebammon of Coptus; and 
Theopemptus of Cabassus; and 
Macarius of Metelis; and 
Adelphius of Sais; and 
Macedonius of Xois; and 
Marinus of Heliopolis; and 
Metrodorus of Leonta (41); and 
Macarius of Anteum; and 
Pabiscus of Apollo (42); and 
Peter of Oxyrinchus; and 
Strategius of Athribis; and 
Athanasius of Paralus; and 
Silvanus of Coprithis; and 

John of Hephaestus; and 
Aristobulus of Thmuis; and 
Theon of Sethroetus (43); and 
Lampo (44) of Cassium (45); and 


(40). Or “οἵ Hellespontus,’’? or “οὗ Helenopontus,”’ or “in Heleno- 
pontus.”’ 

(41). Or “οἵ Leonti,” or ‘‘of Leontes.’”? Was this Leontopolis ? 

(42). Is this the same as Apollonis Fanum in Lydia, or what had been 
that? Bingham mentions it in the “Index of Episcopal Sees,’’ at the end of his 
Book IX. 

(43). Or, ‘‘Sethroetum.”’ 

(44). Or ‘‘ Lampetius.’’ 

(215), Or." * Casvam.s 


28 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Cyrus of Achaei (46); and 
Publius of Olbia; and 
Samuel of Dysthis; and 


Zenobius of Barca; and 

Zeno of Teuchira (47); and 
Daniel of Darnis; and 
Sosipatrus of Septimiaca; and 
Eusebius of Nilopolis; and 
Heraclides of Heraclea; and 
Chrysaorius of Aphrodita (48); and 
Andrew of Hermopolis (49); and 
Sabinus of Pan (50); and 
Abraham of Ostracina; and 
Hierax of Aphnaeum; and 
Alypius (51) of Sela (52); and 
Alexander of Cleopatris; and 
Isaac of Taua (53); and 

Ammon of Butus; and 
Heraclides of Thinis (54); and 
Isaac of Elearchia; and 
Heraclitus of Tamiathis; and 


(46). Or ‘‘of Achaea.”’ 

(47). Or “οἵ Teucri,’’ but the text reading seems better, for all those or 
almost all those here mentioned in this part of the list of Bishops seem to be 
Egyptians; and there were two Sees called Zeuchira in Egypt, but Bingham 
mentions no see of Teucri. Instead of Darnis in the next name below, the 
margin has, mistakenly, I think, ‘‘ Dardanorum.”’ 

(48). Or ‘‘of Aphroditae.”’ 

(49). “Οἵ Great Hermopolis,’’ marginal reading. 

(50). Was this the same as Panopolis ? 

(51): (Or = Ely pins: 

(52). Or ‘Sof Sele.” 

(53). Or “‘of Taba.’’ The Greeks then, as now, seem to have pronounced 
the Beta much like Upsilon, in connections like this; and this has given rise to 
the difference of spelling this name here. 

(54). Or ‘‘of Thynus.”’ 


Names of the Bishops. 29 


Theonas of Psychis (55); and 
Ammonius of Panephesus; and 
Bessula (56), a Deacon of Carthage (57). 


(55). Or ‘fof Psychus,”’ or ‘‘ Psychois,”’ or ‘‘ Psyches.”” 
(56). Or ‘‘ Besula,’’ or ‘‘ Messula.”’ 


(57). The above list, as any one can see by counting it, comprises only 158 
Bishops as actually present at the opening of the Council. Three others. how- 
ever, were represented in it by proxies; that is, Celestine of Rome, by St. Cyril 
of Alexandria; Rufus of Thessalonica, by Flavian of Philippi; and Capreolus of 
Carthage, by his Deacon Bessula, he himself not being able to be present nor to 
send any of his suffragans on account of the terrible Vandal invasion, as he 
explains in a letter to the Council. If these three Bishops, represented but not 
present in person, be added, the whole number is 161. But that is not all who 
really came to the Council, as we shall see stated further on, for in the long 
period of waiting, 15 days, according to our way of reckoning, 16 by the Roman, 
after the date appointed for the opening of the Council, to which must be added 
whatsoever number of days they were there before June 7, 431, the date ap- 
pointed for the opening, some had sickened and others had died. Besides, more 
kept coming in, the late arrivals, till the number who finally subscribed, and 
whose names are given, was 198. Others subscribed afterwards, so that the 
whole number was over 200. 


As to the names of sees, it should be remarked, 


1. That as Bingham shows, they were very numerous in the ancient Church, 
much more numerous than they are to-day, because then smali towns and cities 
had each its prelate, whereas now they are generally found in most countries in 
large cities alone. Besides, then the territory connected with each Bishoprick 
was small, whereas now, in most Christian countries, it is quite iarge. Hence 
there were more Bishops in the fifth century, when, if we may trust Sharon 
Turner’s tables, there were not more than 10,000,000 of Christians, than there 
are to-day, when five hundred millions are computed to profess the Christian 
name. Haddan. in his article, Bishop, in Smith and Cheetham’s Diionary or 
Christian Antigutties, Vol. I., page 235, outer column, states: 


‘““The actual number of Bishops in the time of Constantine is reckoned by 
Gibbon as 1,800, of whom 1,000 were Eastern, 800 Western.’’? In the century 
following, that in which the Third Synod was held, as the number of Christians 
is reckoned by Turner as 15,000,000, if we suppose the number of the Bishops 
increased in the same proportion, there were 2,700. I think I have seen it com- 
puted to have been 3,000, or even 6,000. One of the 13 civil Dioceses of the 
Roman Empire, Asia Minor, which Bingham reckons to be 600 miles in length, 
and 300 in breadth, had 388, according to Carolus a Sancéto Paulo’s reckoning; 
and later, in the eighth century, there were 403 (Bingham’s Antiquities, Book 
IX.,ChapterIII., Section 1). In the ancient limits of Italy he reckons about 300 
(dntig,, Book IX., Chapter V., Section 1). In the civil Diocese of Africa, in 


3 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Peter, a Presbyter (58) of Alexandria, and Chief of the Secretaries, 
said: The most religious (59) Bishop Nestorius was lately 
ordained Bishop for the holy Church of the Constantinopolitans, and 
before many days had sped Expositions (60) of his were brought by 


the time of Augustine of Hippo, about A. D. 431, there were about 466 Bish- 
opricks (Id., Book IX., Chapter II., Section 5). 

But in the East especially, through the idolatry and creature-worship of the 
degenerate Christians, and God’s wrath in the form of the Mohammedan scourge 
for it, the bulk of the Christian dioceses have been wiped out, so that in the jur- 
isdiction granted to Constantinople by Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth Ecumen- 
ical Council, the three civil Dioceses of Thrace, Asia Minor and Pontus, there 
was in 1867 not one-third of the number of sees which had existed in one of 
them alone. The article, Constantinople, Patriarchate of, in McClintock and 
Strong’s Cyclopzedia, states on that what here follows: 

‘‘In 1867, the Patriarchate of Constantinople had 135 sees, of which go are 
metropolitical and 4 archiepiscopal.’’ Alas! the large number of metropo- 
litical sees and the fewness of the suffragans implies what we know to be the 
fact, that hundreds of suffragan sees have been utterly extirpated. How thor- 
oughly large parts of the Dioceses of Pontus, and Asia Minor, have been wiped 
out can readily be seen by examining pages 55-89 of Volume I. of Neale’s 
Eastern Church. See pages 89 and after, to see how Thrace has. So other parts 
of the East have been devastated, and sees destroyed. Consequently it was not 
always easy for the unlearned annotators of the middle ages to tell in their 
ignorance exactly what the spelling of the name of an extinct see should be 
Indeed, they often blundered as to existing sees. For instance, the margin of 
this Council above makes Rheginus, of Constantia, a well known see, to be 
Rheginus of Cattania, a strange blunder. See note 35. 


The learned reader will find much information on the ancient Episcopates, 
their names, etc., in the ninth Book of Bingham’s Axtiguzties, with a list of the 
names of the provinces and sees at the end of Vol. III. of the ten-volume edition 
of 1855. See also Baudrand’s Novum Lexicon Geographicum, Isenaci, A. D. 
1677, Anthon’s Classical Ditionary, and the fuller work of Smith, his DzéZzon- 
ary of Greek and Roman Geography, London, Murray, 1878. Neale’s Eastern 
Church, Vol. I., pages 19-163, is especially valuable on the Geography of the 
Eastern Church. 

For some account of many of the Bishops present at Ephesus, see McClin- 
tock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, and more fully in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary 
of Christian Biography, under their names. 

At the end of Act I. we will give a summary as to the number of Bishops 
that came from each part of the Christian world to the Council. 


(58). That is ‘‘an elder,’? as the Greek word here used is rendered in the 
English New Testament. 


(59). Or ‘‘ most reverent.’’ 


(60). Or ‘‘statements,’’ or ‘‘ expoundings,”’ 


Peter's Account of the Origin of the Controversy. 31 


certain persons from Constantinople which out and out troubled 
those who read them, so that from it much tumult was occasioned in 
the holy churches. Cyril, the most reverent and most God-fearing 
Bishop of Alexandria, having learned of it, wrote a first Epistle and 
a second Epistle to His Reverence (61), both of them full of advice 
and exhortation. He answered those letters, rejecting them, and 
opposing himself to the advice and exhortation sent to him. And 
besides those things, the same most religious (62) Bishop Cyril having 
learned furthermore that both Nestorius’ Letters and Booklets of his 
(63) Expositions had been sent off to Rome by him (64), he himself 
also wrote to the most God-revering Bishop of Rome, Celestine, by 
Possidonius, the Deacon, charging him that if he find that Nesto- 
rius’ Booklets of Expositions and his Letters are delivered to him 
(65), then [said Cyril] deliver the Letters from me also; but if [Nes- 
torius’ be] not [delivered], bring mine back hither not delivered. 
He (66), having found that Nestorius’ Expositions and Letters had 


(61). Or, ‘‘to His Piety,’’ that is to Nestorius. We shall find much of this 
frequent and often extravagant and faulty use of titles to Emperors and to others 
among the Secretaries and others, for it was the custom of that time. See note 
20 above. 

St. Cyril wrote three letters to Nestorius before the Council met. The sec- 
ond of them was approved by vote in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
The third Epistle, that is that of Cyril and the Synod of Egypt to Nestorius, is 
sometimes called the Long Epistle. It has the famous and gloriously Orthodox 
XII. Chapters at the end. It also was approved by the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
cil. These last two, therefore, being confirmed by the Third Synod, are part of 
the faith of the whole Church, and may not be contradicted or rejected under 
pain of deposition in the case of clerics, and of excommunication in the case of 
laics. See the strong and richly deserved language of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council in its Thirteenth Anathema against every man who ‘defends the impi- 
ous writings of Theodoret against the right faith, and against the first and holy 
Synod of Ephesus, and against Cyril who is among the saints, and his XII. 
Chapters,’’ etc. The doctrine of both the Ecumenically approved Epistles is the 
same, though the latter on some points is fuller than the former. And the above 
anathema is therefore against any contradicter of either. See it in fullin Act I. 
of the Third Council, below. 


(62). Or “‘most reverent.’” 

(63). Nestorius’, that is, the Greek is καὶ βιβλία τῶν ἐξηγήσεων αὐτοῦ. 
(64). By Nestorius, that is. 

(65). That is, to Celestine. 

(66). Possidonius. 


32 Act I. of Ephesus. 


been delivered [to Celestine], as a matter of necessity (67) delivered 
Cyril’s Letters also. And those things which were befitting were writ- 
ten by (68) the most holy (69) Bishop of the Church of the Romans, 
Celestine, and they contained a clear type [of doctrine]. Since, 
therefore, by the imperial and dear-to-God Decree (70), your Holy 
Synod has been convened here, we [hereby] inform you, as a matter 
of necessity, that we have now in our hands (71) the papers on these 
matters, and that they are at the service of your God-Revering- 
ness (72). 


Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said, Let the dear-to-God Letter 
of our most religious and Christ-loving Emperors, which was written 
to each of the Metropolitans (73), be read, and let it shine forth in 
front of the Records of the Actions of the present time (74). It 


(67). ᾿Αναγκαίως, ‘‘necessarily,’’ that is necessarily in order to do justice to 
the Orthodox side of the question, as opposed to Nestorius. This looks as 
though St. Cyril was loth at first to appeal to the whole Church on the contro- 
versies involved, and hoped that it might be settled in the Orient, where it had 
risen, by the crushing of the evil there; but as Nestorius by writing to Celestine 
had made the controversy universal, and so had in effect appealed to the West 
on it as well as to the East, Cyril, notwithstanding his love of peace, was practi- 
cally compelled to follow him, and to warn Celestine against his errors. 


(68), (Or. “Strom.” 

(69). ὁσιωτάτου. 

(70). νεύματος. 

(71). Or, ‘‘at our hands.”’ 

(72). A collective title of the Synod. 


(73). The patriarchal sees, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc., seem 
at first to have been metropolitical. See on this Bingham’s .dutiguzties of the 
Christian Church, Book II,, Chapter 17, and especially Section 6 and after ; 
and Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Book V., Chapter 8, who evidently regards 
Canon VI. of the Second Ecumenical Synod as establishing them by making 
each civil diocese a patriarchate and allowing an appeal to its Synod, the Chief 
of which would, of course, be the Bishop of the chief city of that civil Diocese. 
Sophocles in his Lexicon defines πατριάρχης as follows: ‘‘ Patriarch, the highest 
ecclesiastieal dignity, introduced near the close of the fourth century;’’ he refers 
to Fathers and others and to Chalcedon in proof. See also the article Patriarch 
in Smith and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Christian Antiquities 

(74). This was a compliment to the Emperor, and also a token of the 
legality, in the eyes of the civil authorities, of the assembling of the Synod, and 
of their duty to carry out its enactments. The Church seems to have regarded 
the Emperors at that time, if they were Orthodox, much as the Jewish Church 


The Emperors’ First Decree, Convoking the Council. 33 


was at once (75) brought forward by the most religious Peter, a Pres- 
byter (76), of Alexandria, and read as follows: 


‘The Autocrats, Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Victors, 
Trophy-bearers, Greatest, Ever-Revered August Ones, to Bishop 
Cyril (77). 

‘The condition of our Empire (78) has been made dependent on 
piety towards God (79); and there is much that is cognate and con- 
nected between them. For they are upholders of each other, and 
each is increased by the advance of the other; so that the True Relig- 
ion shines forth by right doing, and the State shines forth (80) welded 
together (81) by both [true religion and right doing]. Foras- 
much therefore as we have been appointed by God to reign, and 
are bonds of union for the piety and well being (82) of our sub- 
jects, we always keep the connection between them unbroken, [so] 
acting as agents and go-betweens for God’s Providence (83) and for 


before Christ regarded David and Hezekiah, that is, as protectors, though they 
could not usurp the functions of the ministry in God’s Church, and the Emper- 
ors, being mere laymen, belonged themselves to the Church Taught and not to 
the Church Teaching. The Greek here is, Ἰουβενάλιος, ᾿Επίσκοπος "Ἱεροσολύμων εἶπεν. 
᾿Αναγινωσκέσθω τὸ θεοφιλὲς τῶν εὐσεβεστάτων Kai φιλοχρίστων ἡμῶν Βασιλέων γράμμα τὸ πρὸς 
Ἕκαστον τῶν Μητροπολιτῶν γραφὲν, καὶ προλαμπέτο τῶν πραττομένων νυνὶ Ὑπομνημάτων 
ὅπερ προκομισθὲν διὰ Tov εὐλαβεστάτου Πέτρου, etc. 

(75). The ““δἱ once”’ is in the Latin, but not in the Greek. 

(76). That is ‘‘an elder.”’ 

(77). This word Bishop, to so great a Metropolitan as Cyril, accords with 
Christian simplicity. 

(75); Oty: ** State.” 

(79). The Greek here adds, ‘‘And the rest’”’ [of it], but does not give the 
rest of the epistle in full, because in the common arrangement of matter per- 
taining to the Council it is put in full, not in the Ads but in the preliminary 
part, that is in the matter defore the Council, which we will make a separate 
volume. I give it in full in its proper place here. For it was evidently read in 
full in the above part of the First Act. 

(80). Or ‘‘ becomes illustrious.’’ Compare the teaching of Holy Writ that 
“Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.’’—Prov. 
Xiv., 34. 

(31). Ord πεῖ" 

(82). Or, ‘“‘ well doing.’’ 

(83). Or, ‘‘God’s government.” 


34 Act I. of Ephesus. 


men. And we act as under-servants for that Divine Providence in 
the increase of the State, and on the other hand we become sub-ser- 
vants, so to speak, for all our subjects, that is we provide that they 
shall both be religious and shall behave as becomes religious citi- 
zens, and, as a matter of obligation, we care for both those things; 
for it is not possible that he who watches over one of those matters 
should not care for the other likewise. We are zealous, before every- 
thing else, that the condition of the Church shall be (84) such as is 
fitting towards God, and that its usefulness shall continue in our 
times, and that it shall have, by the unanimity of all, freedom from 
troubles; and, by peace in ecclesiastical affairs, freedom from factions; 
and, moreover, we so act that the pious Religion may be blameless, 
and that those in the Clericate, and those who discharge the [duties 
of the] Great Priesthood (85) may be freed from all blame in regard 
to evils of life. Considering that these aims can be firmly and 
strongly attained by the love towards God and by the mutually 
loving judgment of those who are religious, we have oftentimes 
already deemed necessary the dear-to-God Meeting of the most 
holy Bishops from all sides, on account of the events occurring 
at different times (86). But, nevertheless, we have been the more 


CR eee ee ee. oom 


(84). Or, ‘Before everything else we put zeal for the condition of the 
Church, that it shall be,’’ etc. Oh, that all Christian rulers did that now, and 
that we were saved from the false liberalism which teaches to the contrary. 
The brightest treasure of any Christian nation is Six Synods primitive Chris- 
tianity, the source of all its blessings, and its highest and only hope. 


(85). That is, the Episcopate. The Greeks of the fourth century and 
since have been wont to call each of their Bishops a High Priest (ἀρχιερείς), and 
the expression High Priesthood (ἀρχιερωσύνη) is found used of the office of Chris- 
tian Bishops in Cyril of Alexandria, according to Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of 
the Roman and Byzantine Periods. See under both those Greek words in it. 


(86). What those events were we know not. The language of the Emperor 
implies that he deemed it his work and duty to assemble the Synod of the 
Christian world, of course in conjunction with his colleague, the Emperor of the 
West. But while the Synods were gathered by the decree of the Emperors, who 
could force the Bishops to attend or to stay away, nevertheless the Bishops, 
where they are free, may assemble of themselves as the Apostles did in Acts xv. 
Yet the co-operation of the civil powers is always desirable to enforce their de- 
cisions as to the possession of Church property, to remove heretics from sees, etc. 


The Emperors’ First Decree, Convoking the Couneil. 35 


slow [in assembling such a Synod], because of the trouble it would be 
for their God-Reveringness (87). But the question of the present 
necessary ecclesiastical needs, and of the public [civil] needs connected 
with them, has shown that it (88) isa thing most useful and most 
unrefusable. Wherefore, lest by neglecting the things which per- 
tain to the present examination of such useful matters, they take a 
turn to the worse (a thing which would be alien to the piety of our 
times), thy God-Worshippingness will take care (with God’s help, 
let it be said) that after the coming holy Pask (89) has passed, on 


(87). τῆς αὐτῶν Θεοσεβείας. This is the title of the Synod of Bishops of the 
whole Church. For it will be noticed that it is so called by Theodosius 11., Em- 
peror of the East, and Valentinian III., Emperor of the West, who at this time had 
under their sway the great majority of the Bishops of the Christian world. The 
title, it will be noticed, is in the singular, not the plural, as are also other titles 
of the Synod of the Whole Church, East and West, then not divided. 


(88). That is, ‘a meeting’ of the Synod of the Bishops of the whole 
Church, East and West. For in the days of Orthodox anti-creature-serving 
unity all the sound Bishops of the Christian world constituted the Ecumenical 
Synod which, however, met only six times, that is, in the Six Councils, When 
it became idolatrous, God, as the English Reformers well teach in that golden 
Homily of theirs Against Peril of Idolatry, which the English Church approves 
in its Thirty-Fifth Article, split it into two parts, the West and the East, for that 
sin, as He split the Israelitish Church before it into two parts, Judah and Israel, 
for the same sin of creature-invoking and image-worship. And as those two 
parts of the Twelve Tribes never came together till after the Assyrian Captivity 
and the Babylonian (for they were together after that, Acts xxvi., 7; and 
James i., 1), so there will be no union between the West and the East until both 
get rid of their creature-invoking and their image-worship. Then will come 
release for those parts of the Church which are captive to the Turk and the 
Moor and the Arab. ‘Then, and not before, will both meet in a Seventh Council 
of all the sound and valid Bishops of the whole Christian world. God hasten 
that blessed day, and bless every true Reformer and Restorer. 


; (89). Or ‘‘holy Passover.’? We are wont to call it by the heathen expres- 
sion, Zaster, which is against the command of the old Law which forbade the 
Israelites to take the names of the gods of the heathen into their mouths. The 
primitive Church was careful in this matter. We should be so too. A little 
time and trouble. which should be dear to all, would rectify this abuse. 


In Webster’s Unabridged Diéttionary, Springfield, Mass., 1868, under 
Easter, we find that that term is derived from the Anglo-Saxon Zastre, old 
High German Ostard, ‘‘a goddess of light or spring, in honor of whom a festi- 
val was celebrated in April, whence this month was called A. S.” [that is by the 
Anglo-Saxons], ‘‘EZasterménddh, O. H. Ger.’”’ [that is in old High German], 
‘* Ostermanoth,”” 


36 Act I. of Ephesus. 


the very day of the holy Pentecost (90), it be present in the city 


But what a sacrilege to call the festival of Christ’s resurrection by the name 
of a pagan goddess! Suppose the Israelites had called the Lord’s Passover 
(Exod. xii., 11, 27; Levit. xxiii., 5; Numb. xxviii., 16), Baal’s Passover, or Ash- 
taroth’s Passover, (Judges 1i., 13), should we not be horrified ? 


And so we English-speaking people call every day in the week after a 
heathen god or goddess. Thus, instead of calling the first day of the week by 
its primitive Christian name of Lord’s Day, the name applied to it in Revela- 
tions i., 10, τῇ ΚΚυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, which is the Dominica Dies, that is, Lord’s Day, 
of the primitive Latins, that is the Lord Jesus Christ’s Day, that is the joyful 
Day of his resurrection, we term it Suzday, after the heathen deity the Sun, the 
Baal of the Old Testament, according to some. So instead of naming the re- 
miaining days of the week as the primitive Greek and as the primitive Latin 
Christians did, Second Day, Third Day, Fourth Day, Fifth Day, Sixth Day, and 
Seventh Day, asis the case in service books among the Greek and Latins, even 
yet, we call them by their pagan names—Monday, that is Moon-day, ‘‘that is, 
day of the Moon, day sacred to the moon,’’ as Webster tells us; Tuesday, that 
is day of the pagan Anglo-Saxon god 77w, ‘‘the Mars of our ancestors, the god 
of war’’ (Webster); Wednesday, that is Wodan’s day, that is the day of the 
Old Saxon God, Wodan, ‘‘the highest god of the Germans and Scandinavians’’ 
(Webster); Thursday, that is Thor’s day, the Saxon god of thunder. Webster 
writes on it, ‘‘This day is called so from its being originally consecrated to 
Thor, * * * the god of thunder, answering to the Jove of the Romans.” 
Friday is named after Frig, the Anglo-Saxon ‘‘ goddess of marriage (equivalent 
to [the] Lat[in] Juno), the wife of Odhin or Wodan’”’ (Webster), and, lastly, Sat- 
urday means Saturn’s day, the day of the Anglo-Saxon god Sater, the Roman 
Saturn. See Webster on all those days. 


But the Israelites were forbidden to make mention of the names of false 
gods, as for example, in Exod. xxiii., 13; Numb. xxxii., 38; Deut. xil., 3; Josh. 
=xiil., 7; Psalms xvi., ἡ, Hosea ii, 7,\and Zech. xiii, 2): 

(90). Commonly called Whitsunday in English; a very defective and ob- 
jectionable expression. 


I. Because it is comparatively late, and displaces in places the primitive 
term Pentecost; and in all things the primitive is to be preferred to what is later. 
“Let the ancient customs prevail,’ well says the Sixth Canon of the First Coun- 
cil of the Christian World. 


2. Because it makes the Lord’s Day the day of the pagan Sun god, by 
using the heathen expression Sunday. 


In passing I would add that the learned Bingham, in his Antzguzties of the 
Christian Church, Book XX., Chapter VI., Section 6, mentions two reasons 
for the name Whitsunday, as follows: 

“αι Some learned men think it was hence called Whitsunday, partly because 
of those vast diffusions of light and knowledge, which upon this day were shed 
upon the Apostles, in order to the enlightening of the world. 


The Emperors First Decree, Convoking the Council. 37 


of the Ephesians in Asia, thy God-Worshippingness providing a 
few most holy Bishops of the Province which is under him, as 
many as he (01) may approve, to run together to the same city 


‘But [2], principally, because this being one of the stated times of baptism 
in the ancient Church, they who were baptized put on white garments, in token 
of that pure and innocent course of life they had now engaged in.” 


According to the former understanding of the word Whitsunday, it should be 
written Jizz Lord’s Day, that is Wisdom Lord’s Day, because the gift of the 
Holy Ghost was poured out on that day, that is, His gifts of heavenly wisdom, 
and knowledge, which is part of wisdom, and included in it, by which the 
Apostles, according to Christ’s promise, were ‘‘endued with power from on 
high,” (Luke xxiv., 49; John xiv., 16, 17, 26; John xvi., 7-16). Up to that time 
they were to remain in Jerusalem, (Luke xxiv., 49). But on that day their mis- 
sion from God and authority were attested by miracle, and the gift of tongues 
was given, and thereafter we find in the Church all other miraculous as well as 
ordinary gifts of the Spirit (1. Cor. xii., xiii., and xiv). So the Church was en- 
abled to proclaim the Gospel to all the nations, according to Christ’s command 
in Matt. xxviii., 19, 20; to each in their own tongue. 


While, therefore, I do not deny that the fact that the newly baptized wore 
white robes on Pentecost may have given rise to the name Whit in Whit Lord’s 
Day, yet as that was a mere incidental thing, not at all peculiar to that day, for 
the Pask Lord’s Day was the greatest time for baptizing and wearing white gar- 
ments in the whole year, I prefer to spell the word Wit, and so to say Wit 
Lord’s Day, or Wisdom l,ord’s Day, which is even better, because now better 
understood than W7t Lord‘s Day, for the word W7¢ in modern times has come to 
mean not wisdom so much as a capacity to make and utter funny sayings. For 
to commemorate the outpouring of the Spirit and his gifts on that day is the 
main and original import of that festival. We see in Adts ii. that basic idea, 
And so Bingham in his Amtiguities, Book XX., Chapter VI., Section 6, in 
the context of the above quotation, well writes of the ancient Christians, 


‘“‘They kept it [Pentecost] not as a Jewish feast, but only as a commemo- 
ration of the glorious effusion of the Spirit in the gift of tongues, and other 
miraculous powers, inade at this time upon the disciples. Hence it had also the 
name of ἡμέρα Iveiuaroc, the day of the Holy Ghost, as we find in Nazianzen and 
others.’’ To conclude: 


I. It is best to use the common primitive and Scriptural expression Pente- 
cost, which is well used in the Emperor’s edict above. 


2. Wemay use Wisdom Lord’s Day at times; and 
3. Attimes Day of the Holy Ghost or Day of the Spirit. 


(91). Literally ‘‘it,’’ that is Cyril’s God-Worshippingness, or, in other 
words, Cyril himself. This superabundance of title is nauseating and is the 
language of the, in some respects, non-exemplary Byzantine Emperor, Theodo- 


98 Act 1. ὦ Ephesus. 


(92), so that there may remain a sufficient number of most holy 
Bishops for the most holy Churches in the same Province, and that 
there be in no wise lacking a fit number (93) for the Synod. 


““ For copies [of this decree] of our Serenity in regard to the afore- 
said most holy Synod have been written to the dear-to-God Bishops 
of the Metropolitical cities everywhere, so that when this thing is fin- 
ished the trouble which has arisen from the matters in dispute may 
be settled in accordance with the Ecclesiastical Canons, and that 
correction may be given to those things which have occurred not as 
they should have done; and that piety towards God may be made 
firm, and that firm profit may result to the public civil interests. Of 
course, no innovation may be made by any persons of their own pri- 
vate fancy before the most holy Synod, and the Decision which is to 
be given by it by a vote in common (94) on all matters. And we 


sius the Second, and not ours. The Western Roman Empire died in the fifth 
century, and with it much of such flattering and pompous and often insincere 
stuff which had been derived from paganism, and its deification of its Emperors, 
whom it named gods. Hence, such trash never became so common in the West 
as in the East, where, under the influence and force of the corrupting Empire, it 
was developed in Church and State, and became worse and worse till the rotten 
Eastern Empire fellin A. D. 1453. May such language never be used among 
us. For it leads to insincerity and lying. Let us remember the words of Elihu 
in Job xxxii., 21, 22, ‘‘ Let'me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither 
let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; 
in so doing my Maker would soon take me away.’’ Happily, among the more 
intelligent and wiser in the East as well as in the West, there is a growing disap- 
proval of Byzantine titles and a preference for those which are Scriptural and 
Ante-Nicene. 


Page 492 and after of tome v. of Ralle and Potle’s Syxtagma show low 
Ecclesiastical titles were amplified among the Greeks about A. D. 1379-1389, 
when Urban VI. was Patriarch of Rome, and Nilus Patriarch of Constantinople, 
for their names occur on that page as contemporaries. The present titles of the 
Patriarch of Constantinople, such as your All Holiness, which is blasphemous, 
and Ecumenical Patriarch, which no Russian Bishop, no Servian, no Bulgarian, 
no Roumanian, (which nations together constitute nineteen-twentieths of the 
Eastern Church), admits in its natural and full sense, nor indeed does the Epis- 
copate of Free Greece, should be laid aside. 


(02): “το the same Synod.”’ 
(93). Or, ‘‘enough.”’ 


(94). Here the original idea of gathering the Synod is plainly stated. It 
is that a decision be given dy a common vote, that is, by a vote in common (Kow'y 


The Emperors’ First Decree, Convoking the Counctl 39 


are persuaded on the one hand that each one of the most dear-to- 
God Sacerds (95), (who know that the most holy Synod is hastened 


ψήφῳ). Of course this is radically contradictory to the Roman heresy that Rome 
alone may decide on do@trine for the whole Church. And the Easterns never 
admitted the Roman view. The Church had taught this doctrine to both Em- 
perors, and they merely embodied it in this their Decree. The Sixth Ecumen- 
ical Council, A. D. 680, having condemned in its Definition and Acts, Pope Hono- 
rius as a heretic and fit instrument to work out the devil’s will in raising up the 
Monothelite heresy, has anticipatively condemned Papal Infallibility, and 
taught us to look to the assembled Episcopate, that is Apostolate, of the world; 
that is, to an Ecumenical Council, as Christ does in Matt. xviii., 15-19, and not 
to Peter alone, of whose fallibility we have more examples than we do of any 
other Apostle’s (Matt. xxvi., 31-36, 57, 58, 69-75, inclusive; Mark xiv., 27-32, 53, 
54, 66-72, inclusive; Luke xxii., 31-39, 54-62; John xiii., 36-38, inclusive; John 
xviii., 13-19, 25-27 inclusive, and Galatians ii., 10-21, inclusive). If the Em- 
peror or the Bishops had believed Celestine, Bishop of Rome, to be infallible, 
they need not have met in Ecumenical Council, but have let him alone settle the 
Nestorian heresy. But no one thought of doing that. Indeed, St. Cyril of 
Alexandria’s Letters had vastly more to do with formulating the dogmas of the 
Council than a dozen Celestines could have, for he was their teacher, as the Acts 
show, on the doctrines involved in the controversy, some of which are not even 
mentioned in Celestine’s Epistle, read in the Council. Aye, we shall find the 
Six Provinces of the Latin African Church under Carthage resisting this same 
Celestine’s attempt to secure Appellate JurisdiGtion over them. But that claim 
is a part of Rome’s Dogma of her sole Universal Jurisdiction. See Chrystal’s 
articles on that in the Church Journal for 1870. 


(95). 186 sacerd from the Latin sacerdos, here, because priest is ambig- 
uous, because being derived from presbyter it originally meant “elder.” Herv, 
from ἱερεύς, is a shorter word, and ‘performer of holy actions,’ gives the full 
meaning. With an adjective Hervic, it might be preferred as shorter than 
Sacerd, and its adjective Sacerdotal. The word is here used for Bishops, and 
very properly and very scripturally, for as every Christian is a Sacerd (ἱερεύς in 
the Greek of the New Testament; I. Peter ii., 5, ἱεράτευμα, that is sacerdhood; 
I. Peter ii., 9, ἱεράτευμα, the same in meaning; and Rev. 1., 6, ἱερεῖς, that is 
sacerds, that is hervs), therefore every Deacon is a herv (ἱερεύς), in a higher 
sense; a presbyter in a sense higher yet; and a Bishop, by virtue of his office, in 
the highest sense of all. Under the Mosaic Covenant, there was also a Herv- 
hood (ἱεράτευμα) of the people, Exodus xix., 6, as well as a higher Priesthood of 
the Sons of Aaron, and between those two was what we may term another grade 
of Priesthood, the Levites. But though Azeratic, that is hervic worship was the 
duty of the people, in common with the Levite and the Priest, yet there were 
certain ministerial fun@tions which were peculiar to the Levites into which the 
people could not intrude; and there were still other ministerial functions into 
which neither the people nor the Levites could intrude, as we see by the fate of 


-0 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


in assembling by this our Decree, for the sake of both Ecclesiastical 
and Ecumenical [οἰχουμενιχῶν] affairs), will earnestly co-run (96) to do 
all he can for things so necessary and [so] anticipatively pleasing to 


Korah, the Levite, and the two Reubenite laymen, in Numbers xvi., for their 
attempt to do that very thing. So no Christian laic, male or female, can usurp 
the functions of the Deacon, nor can any laic or Deacon usurp the functions of 
the Presbyter, nor can any person of any one of these three classes usurp the 
peculiar functions of the Bishop. Of course it is understood that no obedience 
or honor is to be granted to a creature-invoking or image-worshipping Bishop or 
cleric of any grade, be he Arian, Macedonian, Nestorian, Eutychian, or Romish, 
or of any other such Communion, for the Decisions of the Six Councils forbid 
us to regard such men as clerics while they continue in their present errors and 
consequent disabilities, and till they have satisfied all the requirements of 
Christ’s laws. We must have sound Six Synods Bishops or none till we can get 
them. 


Another remark should be made here; that is, that the Christian Hervhood 
of the people are a Priesthood, that is a Hervhood in a higher sense than ever 
were the Israelites, because their sacrifices, being spzritual (II. Peter 11.. 5), are 
for that very reason higher than the merely carnal that is fleshly ordinances 
imposed on the Israelites till the time of Reformation (Heb. ix., 10), when they 
were to be displaced by the spzrztual sacrifices of the New Covenant of Christ, 
as they have been for more than 1800 years; the offerings of blood on one nar- 
row spot, Moriah, have been changed for the unbloody sacrifices of Christ’s 
religion, the Eucharist of which has always borne the non-carnal, glorious 
name of the Bloodless Sacrifice (ἀναίμακτος θυσία). But there are some thick- 
headed men yet who can not see that precisely because a sacrifice is spiral it 
is therefore higher than one which is feshly, which consists in killing a bullock 
or sheep or goat, etc. Hence they changed in the middle ages by transubstan- 
tiation the Bloodless Sacrifice into one that was Bloody, and they brought in the 
heresy which St. Cyril condemned as Cannibalism (avépwrogayia), And Nesto- 
rius’ utterances looking towards that error were part of the heresies which led to. 
his condemnation by the whole Church in the Third Ecumenical Synod, for that 
infallible Council condemned by necessary implication all such heresies for- 
ever. And the controversy cannot be reopened again. It is a ruled case. 


Moreover, as our Sacrifices because spiritual are higher than the /leshly 
offerings of the carnal Israel, so the offerings of praise and thanksgiving of the 
saints in heaven being presented with more spiritual minds than ours constitute 
them a higher Priesthood than we in our imperfect spirituality are. 


So that the Priesthood, that is Hervhood, is progressive, each step being 
higher than the last till the highest is reached before God’s throne among the 
blessed saints of all ages. And so is the Holy Spirit glorified. 


(96). Or ‘concur,’ συνδραμεῖν. The word has both meanings, though the 
former, in the text, is the original one. 


The Emperors’ First Decree, Convoking the Council. " 


God; and we, on the other hand, who take much care of these 
things, will not suffer with patience any one to be absent. And he 
who does not at once go in haste at the aforesaid time to the ap- 
pointed place will have no defence before God nor before us. For 
he who is called to a Sacerdotal Synod and does not earnestly and 
speedily co-run to it, is [by that very fact] shown not to be of a 
right conscience. God guard thee through many years, most holy 
(97) and most religious Father. 

“Given the thirteenth day before the Calends of December, in 
Constantinople, in the Consulship of our Lords (98) Theodosius and 
Valentinian the Eternal August Ones (99), Theodosius being Consul 
for the thirteenth time, and Valentinian for the third’’ (100), (101). 

Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said: ‘‘As to this matter 
(102) let the most-dear-to-God and most holy Bishop of the City of 


(97). ὁσιώτατε. 

(98). τῶν Δεσποτῶν ἡμῶν. 

(99). The Greek is, τῶν αἰωνίων Αὐγούστων. 

(100). The Greek as in the matter before the Synod here adds: ‘‘And this 
Decree being read, those things which are written in the Acts were done in Ephesus 
by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod on account of the impious Nestorius.’’ But 
this last sentence, of course, is not in the Acts themselves. 


(101). This date in our computation was November 19, 430. That was more 
than six months before the day appointed for the opening of the Ecumenical 
Council. Neither John of Antioch, therefore, nor any other of Nestorius’ 
friends could plead that he had not sufficient notice of the time and place of its 
meeting. And yet it pleases some still to talk as though their delay was not 
their own fault, and as though the Council passed a snap judgment on the here- 
siarch: though they waited 15 days over the set date for him and his friends. 
What majority in our time in any ecclesiastical Council or political Convention 
will wait so long for a small minority of recalcitrants ? 


(102). That is, as to the matter of meeting on Pentecost in accordance with 
the imperial mandate just read, to decide on the faith. Pentecost in A. D. 431 
was on June 7 (Hefele, History of the Church Councils, English translation, 
Vol. III., page 44). Firmus wishes to show how ready the Orthodox had been 
to meet the imperial order, though Cyril and his Egyptians had to come a greater 
distance than John of Antioch, and many other supporters of Nestorius. This 
public witness was wisely called for in the interest of the Orthodox Council in 
the action which they were about to take, should the Emperor, who, to some 
extent at least, favored Nestorius, oppose the anti-creature-worshipping deci- 
sions of the Council. ‘The date of this first session of the Synod is, according 
to Hefele, June 22, 431. The Bishops in reckoning sixteen days since they came 


42 Act I. ef Ephesus. 


Ephesus bear witness for us how large a number of days have passed 
since our arrival [here].”’ 

Memnon, Bishop of the City of Ephesus, said: ‘‘ Sixteen days 
have passed since the decreed and fore-appointed day mentioned in 
the pious and dear-to-God-Letter [of the Emperors just read].’’ 


Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said: ‘‘This Holy and Great Synod 
has endured sufficient in waiting for the arrival of the most dear-to- 
God Bishops who were expected to come. And since many of the 
Bishops [have suffered]; [for] some have fallen sick, and some have 
died (103), and it is in consonance [with our aim in coming here] 
that we should do what shall satisfy the purposes mentioned in the 
Decree (104) [of the Emperors], and define on (105) the matters re- 
garding the Faith for the profit and help of the whole world (106), 
let the papers which complete the whole statement as to the business 
before us be read in their order; especially because a second Decree 
also, of the most-dear-to-God and most Christ-loving Emperors has 
been read (107) to the Synod by Candidian, the most magnificent 


to Ephesus seem to mean since the Council should have opened. In reckoning 
sixteen days between June 7 and June 22 they include, in accordance with the 
usual Roman method of computing dates, both the day, June 7, from which 
they start to reckon, and the one at which they stop, in this case June 22, so 
making sixteen. I have referred to that above in Note 57. 


(103). Or ‘‘departed;’’? Greek ἀπογεγόνασι. 

(104). This refers to the First Decree of the Emperors to the Council, 
which had been just read. 

(105). διαλαβεῖν. 

(106). Literally, ‘‘of all under heaven.’’ 


(107). Or ‘‘has been read by way of preface,’’ as the word here used, ὑπανε- 
γνῶσθη is rendered in the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, 
published by the Harpers, of New York, in 1883. But in its plain use by Flavian, 
Bishop of Philippi, below (col. 1009, tome 3 of Coleti’s Comc.), the same Greek 
word means merely ‘‘vead,”’ and the Latin for it there is vecztata. The Latin 
here has not the words ‘‘to the Synod,’’ but merely says that the decree had 
been ‘‘fore-read.”? I quote it here: ‘‘ Proinde Chartulae illae, quae ad praesens 
institutum faciunt, ordiue recitentur, maxime,quod alterum jam piissimorum 
Christianissimorumque Imperatorum nostrorum decretum per Candidianum 
magnificum illustremque devotorum Domesticorum Comitem praelectum est, 
quod praecipit, ut quae ad fidei questionem spectant, discutiantur, ac citra 
omnen cun@ationem definiantur. See it in Coleti Conc , tom. 3, col. 999. The 
reference is to the Second Decree of the Emperors to the Council. See it in 
this volume in the Forematter, number IV. 


pb 
3 
~ 


The Emperors’ First Decree, Convoking the Council. 


and most glorious Count of the devoted Household Troops [of the 
Emperor], which commands that the matters on the Faith be 
searched into and a Decision pronounced by us without any delay.’’ 


In any case the reading of the Letter seems not to have been in this first 
official and open Act of the Synod, but before it. This document seems to for- 
bid impliedly the Synod to depose Nestorius, and seems, arrogantly enough, to 
wish to reserve that question to a gathering not specified in Constantinople itself, 
where of course Nestorius could the more readily manage affairs for evil. There- 
fore the Synod did well to give such an absurd claim the go-by as it did here. 


For it would not do to fetter its action and to hinder it from deposing Nesto- 
rius as a heretic and Man-Server, and therefore a creature-server; for that would 
have been practically to let the leaven and virus of that pagan error poison 
gradually the whole Church. It was necessary to cut out the spreading tumor 
to save the Church’s life, and the Church did it wisely and well, and not a mo- 
ment too soon. In that document the Emperor assumes too much of the Dicta- 
tor, and the Master of the Bishops, in laying down the law he would have them 
follow in things which were purely zx their ecclesiastical province and not tn his; 
and so was tyrannical towards them, and would limit their God-given liberty in 
their own spiritual sphere, and substitute his own private will and fancy for the 
guidance of the Holy Ghost promised by Christ himself to the Universal Apos- 
tolate in Matthew xxviii, 20, in John xiv., 16, 17; John xv., 26; John xvi., 
13; I. Tim. iii., 15. And the Episcopate and the Apostolate are the same, for 
Judas’ office is called by both names; see in proof Acts i, 20, 25. And there 
are no less than eight new Apostles mentioned in the New Testament besides 
the first Twelve. See under ἀπόστολος in the Huglishman’s Greek Concordance 
to the New Testament. 


Besides, the general tenor of the document was to reserve to the Emperors 
practically supreme Episcopal power over the Bishops, and the presence, (author- 
ized by the Emperor), in the Council of Candidian, and Count Irenaeus, his 
associate, friends of Nestorius, looks as though the matter were arranged at the 
intercession of Nestorius, the Emperor Theodosius’ own Bishop, to keep him 
from being tried, and to bully and frighten the Council into doing what the 
Emperor wished, though the language of this other decree of the Emperor is 
specious, and therefore the more dangerous. But the Bishops nobly refused to 
allow him the rule over them which belongs to God alone. 


There is stiil another letter of Theodosius II. written before the Synod 
met, to St. Cyril, the great Teacher on the Inman. It is largely a scolding 
of Cyril by the Emperor for his defence of God’s truth. It is a plain con- 
demnation of Cyril in advance by the misinformed Emperor, whose mind 
seems to have been warped on this whole matter by Nestorius, who was necr 
him always, whereas Cyril was in far distant Alexandria, It even threatens 
Cyril, whom it is clear that the Autocrat then hated. I will give it, God willing, 
in another volume containing the Forematter to the Third Synod. No mau 
who has not read it can fully understand the nobleness of Cyril and his rare 


44 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, said: ‘‘ The reading of the papers. 
shall be done at the necessary time (108). Now, however, it is in 
order that the most-dear-to-God Bishop Nestorius also shall be pres- 
ent at the actions, so that the matters which pertain to piety may 
stand by the common judgment and assent.’’ 


Hlermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocurora, said: ‘‘ We were sent yes- 
terday by your God-worshippingness to admonish (109) the most 
religious Nestorius to co-sit in the Holy Synod; and we went to him, 


courage in defending God’s truth against Nestorius, the Man-Worshipper’s vio- 
lation of the first law of Christianity, ‘‘ 7zou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, 
and Him only shalt thou serve,” Matt. iv., το. Few men have been so misun- 
derstood and slandered as the great Cyril; aye, even by the Reformed, who should 
have known better. None of the Reformers of the sixteenth century had a 
head more clear, a logic more incisive and decisive, and a heart more firm against 
every form of creature-service and image-worship than he. Indeed, it is very 
doubtful whether any of them was his equal in such matters. And very rarely 
in history can be found an instance of a whole Synod or nearly a whole Synod 
of Bishops standing so firmly by a leader as the 200 Prelates at Ephesus stood 
by him even when he was arrested and in durance for his and their faith, and 
when he was deprived by the Emperor of his see, and when they all stood in 
peril of the same loss and of exile. Neither he nor the great bulk of them seem 
to have quailed even for a moment. They put duty to God first, and found 
help in Him. 


(108). “7.6 papers which complete the whole statement as to the business 
before us’’ I suppose to be the documents read in this Act I. afterwards, such as 
the Epistle of Nestorius to Cyril, Cyril’s two Epistles to him, the Passages from 
the Fathers, and the Passages from Nestorius’ writings, the Epistle of Celestine, 
Bishop of Rome, and that of Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage. 


Theodotus, a clear-headed business man, proposes first that the accused, 
Nestorius, be summoned to appear before the Council before anything else was: 
done. Then he could make no complaint of unfairness if the verdict of the 
Church was against him. The law of the three summonses to a Bishop before 
trial by a Synod of Bishops is in Matt. xviii., 15 to 21, and from that in the so- 
called Apostolic Canon LXXIV., which though not from the Apostles is, never- 
theless, New Testament in Spirit, and expresses a very ancient custom of the 
Church, at least so far as the number of times the accused is to be summoned is 
concerned. From Robinson’s English Harmony of the Gospels, Section 79, we 
see that the words of Christ, in Matthew xviii., 15 to 21, were spoken to the 
Twelve Apostles. See in that Section, Mark ix, 35, which is one of the parallel 
places to Matt. xviii., I-35. 


(109). Or, ‘‘to remind.’? The term is courteous and polite; ὑπαμνῆσαι, 


The First Summons to Nestortus. The Second. 45 


admonishing him on this matter, but he persisted in saying, ‘/ wll 
see [about it]. lf zt may be needful for me to go, 7 will go.’”’ 


Athanasius, Bishop of Paralus, said: ‘‘We were sent yester- 
day by your God-Worshippingness to admonish the most religious 
Nestorius to co-sit in this Holy Synod, and we went to him, and 
admonished him on that matter; but he kept persistently saying, ‘/ 
will see [about it]; and tf zt may be necessary for me to go, 7 will go.’”’ 


Peter, Bishop of Parembola, said: ‘‘ We were sent yesterday by 
your God-Worshippingness to the most religious Bishop Nestorius to 
admonish him that the Holy Synod will sit on this very day. And 
he answered saying, ‘/ wll see [about it], aud 77 zt may be necessary 
for me to go, 7 will go. And moreover, the most religious and most 
dear-to-God Bishops who were there, who were few in number, about 
six or seven, were admonished also; and they also said: ‘ We will 
see about tt, and tf we approve, we will go to-morrow.’ 


Paul, Bishop of Lampe, said: ‘‘In accordance with the com- 
mand of your Holy and Blessed Synod for us to go to the most relig- 
ious Nestorius to admonish him to come to-day to your Holy and 
Blessed Synod, I also went with the holy brethren who have just 
made their statements, and I admonished him to come to-day to your 
Holy Synod and to co-sit [with the rest of the Bishops]. But he 
said) Lf J \shall approve’, (says. he), “then 7 will be presente 
Moreover, we admonished not only him, but also some other most 
religious Bishops whom we found with him. There were only a 
small number of Bishops [with him], about six or seven.’ ”’ 

Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: ‘‘ Some of the most religious 
Bishops shall go and admonish him again to come and co-sit with 
the Holy Synod.”’ 


And there were sent by the Holy Synod Theodulus, Bishop of 
Elusa in Palestine; Anderius, Bishop of Cherronesus in Crete; The- 
opemptus, Bishop of Cabassus in Egypt; and Epaphroditus, a Reader 
and Secretary of Hellanicus, the most religious Bishop of the City 
of the Rhodians. And they bore a document to be read from /¢he 
Holy Synod to the most religious Bishop Nestorius himself. And it 
contained the following: 


‘Tt was indeed behooving thy God-Worshippingness when 
admonished yesterday, through the most religious and most God- 


46 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Worshipping Bishops that he should co-run to the Holy Synod which 
is to-day celebrated in the Holy and Universal Church (110); not to 
be absent and lacking to it. But since the Holy Synod is assembled, 
and thy Holiness is absent and lacking, we again necessarily exhort 
thee by Theopemptus, and Theodulus, and Anderius, the most rev- 
erent and most God-worshipping Bishops; and by Epaphroditus, a 
Reader and Secretary, of the City of the Rhodians, to be present, 
and not to be absent and lacking to the matters which may be trans- 
acted; especially as the most religious and most dear-to-God Emper- 
ors have commanded us to lay aside everything else, and to settle 
firmly the matters concerning the faith.”’ 

And after they returned, Peter, a Presbyter (111) of Alexandria, 
and Chief of the Secretaries, said: ‘‘Since the most reverent and 
most dear-to-God Bishops, who were sent by the Holy Synod, have 
returned and are present, we will deem it an honor if they will state 
(112) what sort of an answer they have received. 

Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabassus, said: ‘‘ Being sent by this 
Holy and Great Synod to the most reverent Nestorius, we went to 
his house (114). And seeing a multitude of soldiers with clubs, we 
begged that he be notified [of our presence]. But they held us off, 
saying, ‘ He is alone and is resting, and we have been commanded to 
permit no one to enter and to be with him.’ But we said: ‘Itis 
impossible for us to depart, unless we receive an answer; for the 
Holy Synod has sent a document to be read to him, in which they 
exhort him to co-sit with them. Therefore his clerics came out and 
gave us the same answer as the soldiers [did].’ 

‘But inasmuch as we persisted and sought to get an answer 
[from the soldiers on the same matters (115)], there came out Flor- 


(110). Or, ‘‘convened,”’ συγκροτουμένην ἐν τῇ Ayia καὶ ἹΚαθολικῇ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ. 
(111). Thatis, ‘‘elder,’’ tpeofvrepoc. 


(112). Or, ‘‘ We ask them to state.’’ Greek, ἀξιοῦμεν αὐτοὶς καταθέσθαι. 
(114). The Greek here is ἐγενόμεθα ἐν τῇ τούτου οἰκίᾳ, which in classic times 
would mean, ‘‘ we came in his house,”’ or ‘‘ we were in his house.’’ But Sopho- 


cles, in his Lexicon of Later and Byzantine Greek, under ἕν, shows that it is 
used in the sense of ‘‘to”’ (εἰς) That must be the sense here, for below we 
read that the messengers of the Synod were not permitted ‘‘to enter’? (εἰσελθεῖν. 

(115). The words ‘‘from the soldiers on the same matters’’ are lacking in 
the Latin translation; and as they are exactly the same as in the last sentence 
above in the Greek, they may be an inadvertent repetition of them by the copy- 
ist, though on the other hand they may be not. 


The Second Summons to Nestorius. The Third. 47 


entius, the most devoted Tribune, who is with Candidian, the most 
magnificent and most glorious Count of the devoted Household 
Troops, and induced us to remain, on the ground that he would 
bring us an answer. 

‘And now we accepted that proposition with pleasure (116). 
Afterwards (117) he came out with Nestorius’ clerics (118), and 
said to us: ‘I have not been able to see him; but he gave directions 
to say to your God-Worshippingness, After all the Bishops have 
come together, we will meet with them, but we made protest [against 
his delay] both before him and all the soldiers there present, and 
his clerics, and departed.’ ’’ 


Theodulus, Bishop of Elusa, said: ‘‘I also heard the same 
things, and state the same things.”’ 


Anderius, Bishop of Cherronesus in Crete, said: ‘‘T also, in 
accordance with the decree of the Holy and Blessed Synod, went 
there, and said and heard the same things, just as the most God- 
worshipping Bishops with me have stated, without leaving out any- 
baie. 

Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: ‘‘Forasmuch as it behooves 
us to omit none of those things which pertain to Ecclesiastical Order, 
and forasmuch as it is clear that the most dear-to-God Nestorius was 
admonished (119) to appear yesterday, and a second time to-day, and 
has not come, he shall be admonished (120) again a third time, and 
by acitation to be read. Therefore let Anysius, Bishop of Thebae 
(121), in Greece (122), and Memnon (123), Bishop of the same 
Greece (124), and John, Bishop of Hephaestus, in Augustamnica, 


(116). Or, ‘‘And then we received ’’ [an answer], καὶ δὴ ἐδεξάμεθα. 
(117). Or, ‘‘later,’? ὕσπερον. 
(118). The Latin translation has here, instead, “‘he came out together with 


a certain cleric of Nestorius,’ Tandem una cum quodam Nestorii clerico foras 
egressus. 


(aig).- Or,. “cited,” 

(120)... Or,. ‘“cited:?’ 

(121). Thebes is the English name. 

(122). Or, “Hellas,” 

(123). The Latin translation has ‘‘Domnus’”’ instead of Memnon; and so 
has the Greek, but in its margin only. I translate from Coleti. 


(rad). Or, “ Hellas."? 


48 Act I. of Ephesus. 


and Daniel, Bishop of Darnis in Libya, our most God-worshipping 
Fellow-Ministers, go and admonish him the third time. And they 
went away with Anysius, the Secretary and Reader of Firmus, the 
Bishop of Cappadocia, who bore the citation to be read, which con- 
tained the following: 

‘“‘ The most Holy Synod, in obedience to the Canon (125) and treat- 
ing thee with forbearance and long-suffering, co-calls thy Piety by 
this third call. Deem it therefore a worthy thing even now at last 
to meet with us and to defend thyself in regard to the heretical dog- 
mas which they say that thou hast uttered before the Church, before 
the common assembly of the Church. Knowing that if thou dost 
not meet with us, and make a stand and defence against the unwrit- 
ten and the written charges which are made against thee, the most 
Holy Synod will hold it necessary to decree against thee those things 
which are enacted in the Canons of the Holy Fathers.” 

After they returned, Peter, a Preshyter (126) of Alexandria, and 
Chief of the Secretaries, said: ‘‘ And now since the most reverent 
Bishops who were sent have returned, we beg them to state what 
sort of an answer they met with.”’ 

John, Bishop of Hephaestus, said: ‘‘ Having been sent by this 
holy and dear-to-God Synod to summon (127) by the third summons, 
to be read, the most God-worshipping Nestorius, to co-run even now 
at last to the Holy Synod, that the matters (128) on the faith may 
be examined while his God-Worshippingness is present; in accord- 
ance with the commands given us by your God-Worshippingness, 
we went to his abode (129). And when we came to the space before 
the doors of the gate, we found a multitude of soldiers with clubs, 
standing in the very space before the doors of the gate. And we 
begged to be admitted into the gateway of the house where the same 
most God-Worshipping Nestorius is staying, or that they would at 
least give notice that we were sent by the Holy Synod with a third 
summons, to be read, which gently calls him with all mildness to the 
Holy Synod. And we remained much time, but we were not per- 
mitted by the soldiers to stand in the shade, but they pushed us inso- 


(125). Or, ‘Sto the rule,’ τῷ κανόνι. 

(126). Thatis ‘‘an elder,’’ πρεσβύτερος. 

(127). Or, ““ἴο admonish,”’ ὑπομνῆσαι. 

(128). τοὺς περὶ τῆς πίστεως κατεξετασθῆναι λόγους. 
(129). Or, ‘‘stopping place,’’ καταγώγιον. 


The Third Summons to Nestorius. Juvenal on a Fourth. 49 


lently (130) and sent us away from those places and gave us no kind 
(131) answer. And when we had continued there for a long time 
(132), entreating and saying that we are Bishops four in number, 
that we had been sent not to insult, not to do any thing insulting, 
nor anything unbecoming, but now again with all due observance of 
order to admonish him to come to this sacred Church and to co-sit 
with this Holy Synod, at last the soldiers sent us away, saying 
that we should receive no other answer, even though we should wait 
until evening in the spaces before the doors of the gate of the house. 
And they added furthermore the statement that they stood in the 
spaces before the doors of the gates, for the very purpose of not per- 
mitting any one from the Synod to enter; and that they had received 
those commands from him [Nestorius].”’ 


Anystius, Bishop of Thebae, said: ‘‘’ The very things which the 
most holy brother and fellow-minister John has stated, are true. 
For we stood a long time in the space before the doors of the gate of 
the most reverent Nestorius, and saw and heard those things.’’ 


Domnus (133), Bishop of Opus in Hellas (134, said: ‘‘ The very 
things which the most holy and most dear-to-God brethren and Fel- 
low-Ministers John and Anysius have stated, I also saw and heard.”’ 


Daniel, Bishop of Darnis, said: ‘‘I heard those very things 


which the most God-Worshipping Bishops have stated, and they are 
ἘΓΓ6:" 


From this point the godly Synod begins to examine the dogmas of 
Nestorius. 

Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: ‘‘ Although the Church’s 
established laws determine it to be sufficient, if persons accused be 
summoned a third time to make their defence regarding those things 
of which they may be accused, we were ready over and above this 
by a fourth citation, to be read, through Bishops most dear-to-God 
again to call the most religious Nestorius. But because he has 
placed a body of soldiers about his dwelling, so that the most God- 
fearing-Bishops who went to him were kept without, for he did not 


(130). Or, ‘‘arrogantly.”’ 

{(τ2τ} Or, *“nocivil answer.” 

(732). Or, “for much time.”’ 

(133). The margin has ‘‘ Memnon”’ instead of ‘‘ Domnus.”’ 
(134). Or, in ‘‘Greece.’”? It was in the province of Achaia. 


50 Act I. of Ephesus. 


permit them to enter, it is evident that he does not, with a good con- 
science, decline to come to the Holy Synod. Wherefore let matters 
be transacted in order according to the rule of the Canons, and what- 
ever may happen to be of use for the establishment of our correct 
and religious (135) faith. Andin the first place, let there be read 
the Faith (136) put forth by the 318 most holy Fathers and Bishops. 
who assembled in the city of the Nicaeans, so that utterances (137) 
regarding the faith being compared with that Forthset, those which 
are in harmony with it may be approved, and those not in harmony 
with it may be cast out. And che Symbol was read thus: 


The Synod in Nicaea set forth this Fatth, 


We believe in one God (138), the Father Almighty, Maker of 
all visible and [of all] invisible things: 

- And in the one Lord Jesus Anointed, the Son of God, born 
out of the Father, Sole-Born, that is out of the substance of the 
Father, God out of God, Light out of Light, Very God out of Very 
God, born, not made, of the same substance as the Father, through 
whom all things were made, both those in the heaven, and those on 
the earth: who for us men and for our salvation came down and 
took on flesh, and put onaman. He suffered, and rose up on the 


Se a ep LL -- ν 


(135). πίστεως. 
(136). That is Creed. The Greek is πίστις. 
(137). Or, ‘(doctrines ’’ or ‘‘words,”’ λόγων. 


(138). The Greek of the Acts here in Coleti reads as follows: ‘‘ We believe 
in one God; and the rest of the Symbol in order.”” I have given the whole 
Creed here (see it in one form in Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole, edition of 1842, 
pages 105, 106, 107), because it was here said in the Council. Coleti, Conc, 
tom. 3, col. 1007, 1008, note 1, states of the Creed here: ‘‘It is the Nicaean 
Symbol, which is found, tome 2, page 31,”’ he means of his Concilia. I have 
given it above, word for word, mainly as in the form transmitted by Athanasius. 


On the difference between the two forms of the Nicene Creed see Volume I. 
of Nicaea in this series, pages 306, 307, and after, where I have given the Greek 
and English of both forms. It is not necessary to repeat the Greek here. One 
of those forms is given us by Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian, and the other by 
St. Athanasius, the Orthodox leader. In the second edition of Hahn’s 270d/io- 
thek der Symbole, Breslau, A. D. 1877, pages “8, 79 and 80, there is a slight 
change here and there in the text as compared with the first, but no dogma is 
involved. ‘The differences are merely verbal, and seem to have come from the- 


carelessness or mistakes of copiers. 


Reading of the Nicene Creed. 51 


third day, and went up into the heavens; and cometh to judge 
the living and the dead; 


And I believe in the Holy Spirit. 


Moreover the Universal and Apostolic Church anathematizes 
those who say that there was once when the Son of God was not, 
and that before He was born He was not, and that He was made out 
of things not existing, or who say that He is out of another sub- 
sistence or substance [than the Father], or that He is created, alter- 
able or mutable (139). 


(139.) The scholar will notice a peculiarity of the Nicene Creed, its 
Anathema, The Constantinopolitan has additions in place of it. Compare 
Mansi, Concilia, tom. 4, col. 1137, and notes in the margin of id. col. 1138 
and at the foot of the page. The above form of it, that of Athanasius, has 
‘and Apostolic’? before ‘‘ Church.” See in this series Volume I. of Nicaea, 
page 305, and after, as to the difference between his form of it and that of 
Eusebius of Caesarea. About twenty years later, in A. D. 451 in the Fourth 
Ecumenical Council, we shall find both the Ecumenical Creeds, that is that 
of the First Synod and that of the Second, recited, and made a joint crite- 
rion to judge doctrine by. In the sixth century the latter became the more 
common. 


For the Third Council of Toledo, in 589, in its Seeond Canon, ordered ‘‘ that 
zi all the Churches’ throughout all the Spanish dominions of that day, ‘‘ 727 ac- 
cordance with the form of the Oriental Churches, the Symbol of the Faith of the 
Council of Constantinople must be recited, that ts that of the One Hundred and 
Fifty Bishops.’ Τί 15 there specified that it be said by the people in a clear voice 
before the Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist, which would mean, of course, its 
recitation every Lord's Day, and whenever the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. 
Since then it has been in much more common use in the whole Church, West 
and East, than the Creed of Nicaea. Indeed, among both Latins, and Greeks, 
and Protestants there is now little or no recitation in service of the Creed of the 
318. But it should be said, for the sake of its testimony as an utterance of the 
whole Church to God’s truth, on some Lord's Days every year. But in 431 at 
Ephesus the Nicene Creed was stillin more common use in the East, and, as. 
the Bishops in the Fourth Council testify, was still the Baptismal Creed there. 
See also Vol. I. of Vicaea in this series, page 315, and note 472, id., regarding 
its use there. 


It is a memorable circumstance which seems to show the high place as- 
signed by the assembled Prelates to that Universal Symbol that at the very 
threshold of their examination of the opinions of Nestorius they fix that Creed 
as a criterion of their decision. An old Greek writer, of the Middle Ages, 
truthfully says that the Six Ecumenical Synods defined on the Symbol or Sym- 
bols of the Faith. For the First formulated the Nicaean, and explained it 
against the professedly creature-serving Arians; the Second formulated the 


52 all. oy HE phesis. 


That Symbol being read, Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and 
Chief of the Secretaries, said: ‘‘ We have in our hands an Epistle of 
the most holy and most God-fearing Archbishop Cyril, written to 
the most religious Nestorius, full of counsel and exhortation, based 
on the belief that Nestorius did not hold correct opinions, which, if 
your Holiness (140) will command, I will read.’’ 


Aeacius, Bishop of Melitene, said: ‘‘ Because the most religious 
and most dear-to-God Presbyter, Peter, who has made a beginning of 
the statement of the case, and in it has said that certain matters 
were written by the most dear-to-God and most holy Bishop Cyril 
to the most religious Nestorius, on the ground that Nestorius did 
not teach correct doctrine, it fitly follows that these matters also be 
read. 


Constantinopolitan Creed against the professedly creature-serving Macedonians; 
the Third explained the Nicaean against the Man-serving heretic, Nestorius ; 
the Fourth explained both against the creature-serving Monophysites; the Fifth 
reenforced the work of the Third, against the creature-serving Nestorians, and 
the Sixth the work of the Fourth against the Monothelites. So that all Six 
anathematized the creature-servers who perverted the sense of those two sole 
Ecumenical Creeds. So that we may say justly that the chief work of the Six 
Ecumenical Councils was not only to define on the two Creeds, but also to de- 
fine on them against deniers of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, all of whom 
ended at last in creature-service. The Council of A. D. 754, at Constantinople, 
and that of 787 at Nicaea, undertook to oppose the work of the Six, and to undo 
them; that of A. D. 754, if it be corre@tly reported, by favoring creature-invo- 
cation, and that of A. D. 787, by favoring creature-invocation and image-wor- 
ship, but their work will utterly fail, because all-creature service is antecedently 
anathematized by necessary implication in the Six. For surely if they anath- 
ematize every one who worships by itself the humanity of Christ, confessedly 
on all hands the highest and best of all created things, much more do they 
anathematize every one who worships a lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary, 
or any saint or angel or any image painted or graven, or any cross, or anything 
except God; and so accord with Christ’s law in Matt. iv., Io. 


If any one depraved by idolatry reply that they have not condemned the 
relative worship of pictures, crosses, graven images, relics, angels, saints, and 
the Virgin, I reply that they have by necessary 1mplication, because, as we shall 
see further on in this very Council, that was one of the sins of the heresiarch 
Nestorius, for which among his other heresies the Synod deposed him. For his 
own words quoted against him there show that he strove to excuse his worship 
of Christ’s mere humanity on that very plea, which is the common plea of the 
heathen in all ages and of apostate Christians now. 


(140). A collective title of the whole Council. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 53 


And the Epistle was read and lies among the documents pre- 
ceding (141). Its beginning contains the following, thus: 
Copy of the Epistle written by Cyril to Nestorius (142). 
[Section 1.—Cyril exposes and denounces some wicked men who had 
circulated false reports concerning himself |: 


‘‘Certain persons, as I learn, chatter nonsense, concerning my 


(141.) That is among the Documents in the Forematter to the Acts of Ephe- 
sus. This expression shows that whenever this Recension of the Acts was made 
there was a Forematter. Now the number of those Documents varies in the 
different editions. What the original number was I know not. 


(142). The Epistle of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, which here begins, 
is approved by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus as being in consonance with 
the Symbol of the 318. It is, therefore, very valuable on account of its greater 
fulness regarding the subject of the Hypostasis, that is the Personality of our 
Lord Jesus Christ in explaining that Symbol, and against the Nestorian bowing 
to the man put on by the Word, and hence against Man-Service, that is Crea- 
ture-Service. 

For the Greek see Mansi, Concilia, tom. iv., col. 888-892, and Migne’s /at- 
rologia, Gracea, tome 77, columns 44-49, and Coleti’s Concilia, tome 111 Col. 
umns 868-872. 

We must remember always not only that St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Shorter 
Epistle to Nestorius was confirmed in a general sense, but that it was actually 
approved in the most solemn and definite manner, without excepting any thing, 
by vote in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council. The Greek text above is 
taken from it as it was read in the local Council of Constantinople under St. 
Flavian against the heresiarch Eutyches, A. D. 448, read again in the Robbers’ 
Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, when the action of the former Syuod was re-ex- 
amined, and finally read again in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 
451, when the action of both those Councils on Eutyches was examined again. 
I give it in the only place in the Acts proper of the Six Ecumenical Synods, 
where it is printed in full, that is in Act I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. 
I give it as it is in Hardouin and Mansi, especially as in Hardouin. At the same 
time I compare in the Appendix, P. E. Pusey’s Greek text of the same Letter 
as on pages 2-10 of his Three Epistles of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexan- 
dria, Parker, Oxford, 1872. See that comparison in the notes there. 

And as this Epistle, as is said above, is sealed with the approval of the 
whole Church, as a norm of Authoritative Definition on the Creed of the First 
Ecumenical Council, and as a fuller development of its teachings on the Inflesh 
and the Inman, and the Hypostatic, that is the Substance Union of the Two 
Natures in Christ, and on the doctrines of the Economic Appropriation to God 
the Word of the Sufferings of the Man put on by God the Word, and against 
the Nestorian worship of that Man; for it was approved and adopted in its 
entirety by another Ecumenical Council, the Third, and was appealed to as 


δ4 Act I. of Ephesus. 


reputation before thy God-Worshippingness (143); and this they do 


authoritative in the Fourth and the Fifth; it is therefore of the same authority 
as that Ecumenical Creed itself, for it is approved in an Ecumenical Synod just 
as formally and just as fully. The kind of approving authority is the same. 
Hence it is all-important to know exa¢tly what it is, and why we follow the text 
of it in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Forif anything has been 
interpolated into it, it is of no authority, and must be rejected. And if anything 
in it, as approved by the Third Synod, has been purposely rejected by any indi- 
vidual or by any local Church, or has been accidentally omitted by any copier 
or printer, it must be restored. For it is still Ecumenically approved, and hence 
is still the voice of the whole Church which Christ has commanded us to hear 
under pain of being regarded ‘‘as ὦ heathen man and a publican,” Matt. 
Vili, 17. 

We discuss here, therefore, 

1. The question, Which τς the most correct and authoritative text of the 
shorter Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius ? and 


2. Wetreat of the matter of z/s authority. 


Now, τ, which ts the most correct aud authoritative text of the Shorter 
Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius ? 


In Labbé and Cossart’s Concilia, tome iii., (Lutetiae Parisiorum, A. D. 1671), 
column 462, where we read in Act I. of Ephesus that Acacius, of Melitene, 
called for the reading of St. Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, which was 
approved by vote in the same Act I. of that Ecumenical Council, we find the 
following 7% Greek which shows that whenever the Acts were drawn up in their 
present form, whatever time that was, no part of that Epistle, except the be- 
ginning, was in the Act-Records, but all of it was in the Forematter; for we 
read in response to his suggestion, 


“And it was read and lies among the documents preceding. The beginning 
of the Epistle reads as follows: ‘‘ Copy of an Epistle written by Cyril to Nesto- 
vyius. ‘Certain persons, as I learn, are chattering stuff before thy God-Wor- 
shippingness against my reputation;’ and the rest of it.” 

That means, of course, that it was all read in that Act I., but was not then 
written out in full in it. I have examined as to that in Act I. of Ephesus and 
in the Sixth Conference of the Fifth Ecumenical Council as in Hardouin, Coleti, 
Mansi, and Labbé and Cossart, and have examined it as in the Second Act also 
of the Fonrth Ecumenical Council, and find in them all only about twelve 
words of the Greek of the beginning of the shorter of the two Epistles of Cyril, 
which were approved by the T!:ird Ecumenical Council. But it is given in full 
in Greek in Act II. of the local Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, and is 
copied thence in full into Act I. of the Robbers’ Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, 
and into Act I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council also. 

In those four places alone do we find it read in any of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils. And, as has been said, in only one of them, that isin Act I. of the 
Fourth Synod, is it given in full zz the Aéts. The only other place where it is 


Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 55 


pee ee ee 


often, and they watch especially the meetings of those in authority 


given in full in the published editions of the Councils is in the Forematter to 
Ephesus, which is no part of the Council proper. 


It is all-important then to every translator and to every editor to ask which 
is the most genuine, correct and authoritative text. 


In reply to that inquiry I would say that if we knew the exact date of the 
present arrangement in the printed editions of Ephesus and Chalcedon, of Fore- 
matter first and the Acts after them, and could be assured that the copy of the 
Shorter Epistle of St. Cyril in the Forematter to the Third Ecumenical Synod 
is exactly like the original, it of course would be the most authoritative form of 
it. ButI have not seen any well founded statement as to when that arrange- 
ment was made, nor as to whether the copy now in the Forematter to Ephesus 
was at first an exact copy of the original, nor whether, if it was, it has escaped 
the corrupting touch of Monophysite adulteration, which, as we shall show else- 
where from old writers has affected so many of the writings of St. Cyril. But it 
is reasonable to suppose that the Records of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 
which the One-Natureites rejected and spurned, would not be tampered with by 
them. Their motive in corrupting the writings of Cyril was to make utterances 
which all deemed Orthodox speak in their favor. But they did not deem Chal. 
cedon Orthodox nor authoritative, and hence would have nothing to do with it. 
Hence we may feel sure that the full text of that Epistle, in Act I. of the Fourth 
Ecumenical Synod, may be said to be at least as old as A. D. 448, for it was 
read in the local Council of Constantinople in that year which condemned 
Eutyches. It was read again in A. D. 449, with the part of that Council in 
which it stands, when Eutyches’ case was reinvestigated again in the Monophys- 
ite Robbers’ Synod of A. D. 449, and was requoted again in the Ecumenical 
Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, with the Acts of the two Councils aforesaid 
relating to it, and in none of those Councils was its text questioned; so that we 
may safely say that it is thrice proved, and so, authoritative. It was not faulted 
by either party, the Orthodox or the heretics. But there are other documents 
in the Forematter to Ephesus, which seem to have been adulterated by the 
Monophysites—a fact which the editor of it did not possess sufficient critical 
ability to see. Therefore I will follow it mainly, as most authoritative, and will 
bracket some words in P. KE. Pusey’s Greek of this Epistle which are not in it, 
though in the case of one or two words so bracketed, it may be that they were 
originally in the authoritative text aforesaid, and were well restored from good 
manuscripts by Pusey. I will also endeavor to note every difference worth 
noticing. The English text above is then that of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle as in 
the local Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, which was read in the Robbers’ 
Synod of Ephesus in A. D. 449, and in the Fourth Ecumenical Council in A. D, 
451. I have followed Hardouin’s reading mainly. 

That P. E. Pusey in his Three Epistles of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexan- 
dria, Preface, pages iv. and v., tells us that in making up the Greek text which 
he gives, he has collated several manuscripts, one of which is of the Fourth 
Ecumenical Council, and is of the eleventh century. The other manuscripts, 


56 Act I. of Ephesus. 


as a fit time for their purpose, supposing perhaps that they can 


so far as dated by him, are given as follows, one of the eleventh century, one 
of the twelfth, and two of the fourteenth. These are late, therefore. 


I have seen no date ascribed to the manuscript or manuscripts of the Fourth 
Ecumenical Council, from which the editions have been printed. 


I would add that there is no difference of note between the readings of the 
Epistle as in Act I. of Chalcedon, and the form of it given in the Forematter to. 
Ephesus, if we except one part, where one has μὴ τοῦτο εἰς φάντασμα, and the other 
has μὴ τομῆς φαντασίας. On that we will speak more at length in a note below 
and in the Appendix when we come to it. Most of the other differences seem 
to be copyists’ or printers’ errors. 


Hardouin’s text of St. Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, approved at 
Ephesus, seems the most correct. Some of the differences between him and 
Mansi on this Epistle seem to be mere printers’ errors in the latter’s edition of 
the Councils; for example, to make Pusey’s numbering of the lines available for 
a comparison, where in Pusey’s, line 20, page 4, Hardouin has, like Pusey, τὸ: 
φῶς, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτός, Mansi has τὸ φῶς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ φωτός, which is not good Greek. 
So in line 17, page 10, of Pusey, we find ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῶ; but the copyist, I 
suppose, followed a reader; and, because in the later, perhaps in the ancient 
Greek also, τῆς and τοῖς are pronounced alike, hence blunderingly wrote τοῖς for 
τῆς and Mansi’s text follows him. For sometimes in the writing room of a mon- 
astery, where two or more of the brethren wrote to earn their bread, one dictated 
the work which they were copying. Sometimes that would be the case where 
but one wrote; for such a division of labor between reader and copyist saved 
much time. Otherwise if the copyist had to read, as well as copy, his attention 
would be constantly occupied by the manuscript which he followed, and the 
one which he himself was writing, and so much time would be lost in constantly 
turning from one to the other and back again. 


Wecome now: 2. To the question of the Authority of this Epistle. 


That is evident (A), from the fact that it was examined and then approved 
by vote in the Third Ecumenical Council. That of course gives it Ecumenical 
Authority. 

(B). As the Actions of that Synod were received and approved and main- 
tained by the three Ecumenical Councils after it, as we see by their Definitions, 
this Epistle has therefore received their approval, by necessary implication, four 
times in all. It was actually read as an authority in the Fourth World-Synod, 
and the Fifth. It was twice read in the Fourth, first in its Act I., and the second 
time in its Act II. I quote a part of Act II, which shows how highly the 
Bishops esteemed it. I translate, from column 343, tome iv. (Lutetiae Paris- 
iorum A. Ὁ. 1671), of Labbé and Cossart’s Conczlia. It is preceded in column 
342, of the same tome, by the reading, by the Archdeacon Aetius, of the Creed 
of the Second Ecumenical Council and the acclamations of the assembled. 
Bishops for it. Then comes the following in that Act Second of Chalcedon: 


“ Netius, the most reverent Archdeacon, said: 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 57 


please thy ears (144); and they spread baseless (145) reports, 


‘* There is also the Epistle which was written by the most holy Cyril [now] 
among the saints, who was Bishop of the great city, Alexandria, to Nestorius, 
which was both approved by all the holy Bishops who came together aforetime 
in Ephesus for [or ‘‘at,”? ἐπὲ καθαιρέσει] the deposition of the same Nestorius, and 
was confirmed by the subscription of all. And there is the Epistle of the same 
Cyril [now] among the saints, which was written to John of holy memory, who 
was Bishop of the great city of Antioch, which was likewise confirmed. And 
if it be pleasing [or ‘‘szuceztzs at hand,”’ καὶ εἰ παρίσταται, ‘‘et si placuerit,”’ 
Latin in the parallel column], I will read them. 


The most glorious Archons and the most ample Senate said, Let the Epistles 
of Cyril of holy memory be read. 


Aetius, Archdeacon of the imperial city of Constantinople read [them as 
follows]: 


‘“To the most reverent and most God-worshipping Fellow-Minister, Nesto- 
rius, Cyril wisheth joy in the Lord. 

‘Certain persons, as I learn, are chattering stuff against my reputation before 
thy God-worshippingness, and this they do often, and the rest of the Epistle as 
itis written above (or ‘‘whichis”’ 7 τις προγέγραπται in the Council held in 
Constantinople against Eutyches, where it was read in the Second Act. 

[In like manner the same Archdeacon Aetius read (as follows): ] 


An Epistle of the same Cyril of most holy memory written to John, Bishop 
of Antioch, on the Peace [between the two]: 


‘“‘Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad [Psalm xcvi., 11.]; for the 
middle wall of partition hath been broken down [Eph. ii., 14], and that which 
causeth grief hath been made to cease, and every form of disagreement hath 
been done away; and the rest [of the Epistle] as 12} 7s all written above in the 
same Council which was held against Eutyches after the Epistle [οἵ Cyril] above 
written.’? 


‘“‘And after the reading the most religious Bishops shouted out, We allso 
believe! Pope [that is ‘‘Father’’] Leo so believes! Anathema to him that puts 
apart [from each other the two Natures of Christ], and to him that mingles 
[them] together! That is the faith of Leo the Archbishop! Leo so believes ! 
Leo and Anatolius so believe! We all so believe! As Cyril believed, so we 
believe! Eternal be Cyril’s memory! As the Epistles of Cyril teach, so we 
hold! So we have believed! So we believe! Teo the Archbishop so thinks, so 
believes, and has so written! 


‘The most glorious Archons and the most ample Senate said, Let the Epistle 
of the most holy Leo, Archbishop of the imperial and elder Rome, be read.”’ 

I should add that the words, ‘‘ In like manner the same Archdeacon Aetius 
read’ are in the Latin translation but not in the Greek. 


Then was read Leo’s famous Epistle to Flavian against the Eutychian 
heresy, which was then examined and approved by the Council. 


58 Act I. of Ephesus. 


although they have been wronged by me in nothing, but have been 


From the foregoing utterances of the 630 Bishops of the Fourth Ecumenical 
Council we may readily see the high esteem in which the two Epistles of Cyril 
above meant were ever held by the whole Church, and their vast authority. The 
same thing is evident from other parts of the last four Ecumenical Synods, the 
Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth as to his Epistle which has the XII. Chapters 


What we have just quoted from Labbé and Cossart on the aforesaid two 
Epistles of Cyril, etc., is found in the same Act Second of Chalcedon, in tome 
second of Hardouin’s Concilia, columns 288 and 289; and in tome vi. of Mansi, 


col. 957-960. | 

(143). Greek, ἐπὶ τῆς σῆς θεοσεβείας, ‘‘God-Worshippingness’’ is an exact 
rendering of this peculiarly Byzantine and Oriental title. The Greek here 
reads, ‘‘ Certain persons, as I learn, chatter nonsense as to my reputation before 
thy God-Worshippingness and the rest”’ [of the Epistle]. But I give the whole 
of it here, where it evidently belongs, instead of putting it with the documents 
before the Synod, as is often done. For though it was written before the Synod, 
nevertheless it was not passed upon and authorized by the whole Church as a 
norm of Orthodox definition as to the true sense of the Creed of the 318, before 
Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, as in the context above. 


(144). The reference is to the intrigues of the Alexandrian clerics or laics, 
who had been rebuked or disciplined by St. Cyril, and full of malignity and 
revenge, had betaken themselves to the imperial Court at Constantinople to 
slander him and to work him woe. By so doing they might hope for restora- 
tion, especially if they could procure his deposition. Such justly censured and 
unworthy men would naturally avail themselves of the religious controversy 
which had just arisen, and for malice sake and their own selfish interests, would 
naturally ally themselves with Nestorius, though at heart they may have cared 
but little for him or the controversy itself, except as means to gain their own 
ends. How far Nestorius egged them on to injure Cyril we can not exa¢tly say; 
but we do know that the Emperor Theodosius the Second’s mind was so 
strongly prejudiced against Cyril that after this, and before the Council met, he 
wrote him acensuring and threatening letter, which we will give in the Fore- 
matter to Epnesus, and that when Nestorius went to the Synod, he sent along 
with him the strong Nestorian partisan, the Count Irenaeus, and Count Candi- 
dian, and placed the military force at Ephesus under the latter, which he used 
for Nestorius and against Cyril and the Synod, as we see in its As and in those 
of John of Antioch’s conventicle there. And Count Irenaeus was the instigator 
and approver of insults and wounds inflitted on the Bishops and Clergy, who 
were sent by the Ecumenical Council to inform John of Antioch, on his arrival 
at Ephesus, of their action in deposing Nestorius for his heresies (Hefele, /7s- 
tory of the Church Councils, English translation, volume 3, page 55). More of 
his hostility to the Council is told in the same volume, pages 79, 81 and 82. 


Besides, the second letter of Theodosius II., above given, to the Council, 
attempted to govern it and even to order it in the interests of Nestorius. To all 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Episile to Nestorius. 59 


rebuked, and that too only for their benefit (146); one pecause he 
was wronging the blind and the poor; another because he drew a 
sword upon his mother; a third because in connection with a maid 
servant he stole another’s money, and in consequence fell into such 
continual disrepute as one would not wish to happen to‘any, even of 
his bitterest enemies. But the word of such is not much to me, for 
I would not stretch out the measure of the littleness in me either 
beyond the Master and ‘Teacher, or indeed beyond the fathers. 
For it is not granted to any one to escape the rudenesses of the 
wicked, as any one would prefer to in passing through life (147). 
But those who have ‘ mouths full of cursing and bitterness’ (148) shall 
be called upon to make their defence before the Judge of all men.”’ 


these acts of prejudice and hostility on the part of the Emperor and his subor- 
dinates, the lies of the wicked and unworthy men whom Cyril mentions above 
as his enemies may have contributed. 


(45). (Or *“zrksome,”’ or “tucousiderate,” or “forced,” 


(146). It was Cyril’s right and solemn duty asa Bishop to rebuke such of 
his clergy or people as committed the grievous sins which he specifies above. 
His predecessors, the Apostles, had so done, as we see by the New Testament, 
again and again. Paul, for instance, rebuked drunkenness and disorder at the 
Lord’s Supper in the Church of Corinth, and excommunicated the incestuous 
person at Corinth from the church for immorality, and Hymenaeus and Alex- 
ander for heresy (I. Cor. xi., 17-34; I. Cor. v.; I. Tim. i., 19, 20). So he rebukes 
his brethren again and again in his Epistles for other follies, sins and heresies. 
Every Bishop must, as God’s watchman, so act, or be eternally lost (Ezek. iii., 
16-22, and Ezek. xxxiii., I-10). He must do what Paul tells his fellow-Apostle 
Timothy to do (I. Thess. i., 1, compared with I. Thess. ii., 6), that is, ‘‘ d¢ 1γ5έατι: 
in season, out of season; rebrove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and 
doétrine,’’? and that even though the time come when, as now, many ‘‘zwz7// nct 
endure sound doctrine’? (11. Tim. iv., 2, 3), as many would not in Cyril’s day. 
If any Bishop proves an unfaithful watchman and lets evils in doctrine, rite, 
discipline and custom, come in, or exist, and sees his clergy or people becomin&s 
vile, God will curse and damn his soul for it, as he cursed Eli, the high priest of 
yore, for similar false and doting affeCtion and carelessness. Read by all means, 
I. Sam. iii., 11-15, and see I. Sam. ii., 27-36, and I. Sam. iv., 11-22; and I. Kings 
ii., 27, 35, and I. Kings xxix., 22; compare Ezek. xliv., 10-17. 


(147). The Latin translation here, pages 3 and 5 of P. E. Pusey’s “‘7hree 
Epistles of St. Cyril,” is somewhat different. Translated, it reads, ‘‘I’or it is 
not an easy thing for any man, though he may live a circumspect life, to 
avoid the evil speakings of bad men’’ (non enim facile est cuiquam, licct 
vitam suam habeat circumspectam, nequam hominum maledicta vitare). Pusey, 
on page v. of the Preface makes the above Latin to be Marius Mercator’s of the 
fifth century. 


(148). Romans iii., 14. 


60 Act 1. of Lphesus 


[SecTION II.—Cyril warns Nestorius against the sin of leading men 
astray, and urges hin to cleave to the true sense of the Fathers 
as set forth in the Nicene Creed. He explains it against the 
Nestorians denial of the Inflesh and the Inman of God the lord, 
and against their consequent worship of a mere Man by bowing. 
He explains also the Orthodox doctrine of the Economic Appro- 
priation of the sufferings of the humanity of Christ to His Divin- 
ity, and sets forth the true sense of the expression, ‘‘ Bringer 
Forth of God,’ used of the Virgin Mary, as designed to guard 
the doctrine of the real Incarnation of God the Word 1. 


But I will turn again to that which most befits myseif and will 
admonish thee even now, as thou art a brother in the Lord, to set 
forth the word of instruction and the sense of the Faith with all 
unerringness to the peoples, and to remember that ‘He causing even 
one only of the little ones who believe in Christ to stumble (149) offers. 
(to God] unbearabie provocation. But if the multitude of those who 
are aggrieved [by thee] be so great, in what need do we stand of 
every good art for the duty of prudently removing thy stumbling 
slocks, and of making plain the sound do¢trine of the Faith to those 
who are seeking the truth! And that will be achieved, and that too. 
very rightly, if, when we meet with the words of the holy Fathers, 
we be in earnest to make them of much account, and if, ‘ryimg our- 
selves whether we are in the faith, as it is written (150) we very well 
conform our thoughts to their right and blameless opinions. 

The holy and great Synod [in Nicaea] (151) said therefore that 
He who, as respects His [divine] nature, was ‘‘ born out of God the 
father,’’ the ‘' Sole-born Son,’’ the ‘‘ very God out of very God,’ the 
Light out of the Light,” He ‘‘ through Whom the Father hath made 
ail things.’ δ᾽ came down, and took on flesh and put on a man,’ that 
He ‘suffered, rose up on the third day, and went up into the heavens;”’ 


(149). Matt. xviii., 6. 

(i560). PE Cor, ἘΠῚ: 5: 

(151). There is no mention of the Second Ecumenical Council or of its 
Creed in the A&ts of this Third World-Synod, for it was not much known, or if 
known at all was not made much of in any place outside of the jurisdiction of 
the Patriarch of Constantinople till about the time of the Fourth Ecumenical 
Council, A. D. 451, in which its Creed was read and appealed to as authoritative. 
as its Third Canon also is in the Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon. After that 
the Ecumenicity of the Second Synod was universally admitted, though Rome 
objected for a time to its Canon TII.; and Hammoud, on its Canon V., shows 
that some have doubted whether its Canons V., VI., and VII. were really made 
by it. Of that we hope to treat when we come to that Council. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 61 


and we ought to follow those things, both the words and the doc- 
trines, considering what is meant by the expression that the Word 
who came ‘‘ out of God took on flesh and put on a man,’’ for we do not 
say that the [divine] Nature of the Word was changed and became 
flesh (152), nor do we assert that It (153) was changed into an entire 
man compounded of soul and body (154). But we say on the con- 
trary (155), that the Word, having united to His own Substance 
flesh animated (156) by a rational soul (157), became man in a way 


(152.) This was somewhat akin to the heresy or to one of the heresies of one 
wing of the Apollinarians, who made but one Nature out of the Two Natures of 
Christ, in such a sense as to make both flesh, or both a Third Thing which is 
neither wholly God nor wholly man, or both God; so changing the substance 
of the Creator into the creature, or, vice versa, of the creature into the Creator, 
or mixing the Two infinitely distinct things in an impossible union, the very 
assertion of which is an insult to the unchangeable God. Then, after thus mix- 
ing the two Natures into a Third Thing, they worshipped It as God, and by wor- 
shipping It as God, they iz fact, whatever may have been their intention, wor- 
shipped as God the created humanity of Christ, which, notwithstanding their 
heresies against it, still remains, and so were Man-Worshippers, that is Creature- 
Worshippers. The Apollinarians are condemned by name in Canons I. and VII. 
of the Second Ecumenical Council, and their heresies in the utterances of the 
Fourth, and in Canons VII., VIII. and IX. of the Fifth. 


(153.) That is the divine Nature of God the Word. 


(154). ‘The Orthodox, like Cyril, held that Christ’s humanity was a whole 
man. He wrote against the Synusiasts, that is Cosubstancers, who, like the after 
Monophysites, made but one substance of the Two Natures; and against the 
Dimcerites, that is the Two Partites, who asserted that though there are three 
parts which compose a whole man, that is body, soul and mind, Christ’s 
humanity had only the first two, and so wholly lacked a mind. 


(155.) Or ‘‘vather,’’ μᾶλλον, but the reading in the text conveys the sense 
better to the English reader, for our vather does not express the opposition 
between what precedes and what follows the ‘‘vather”’ above. 


(156). Literally, “having united to Himself substancely (καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν) 
flesh,” etc., as above. That Substance-Union is the Union of the actual sub- 
stance of God the Word’s Divinity with the actual substance of the entire Man 
whom He took on in the womb of the Virgin Mary, where that Union began, 
and in that man thus put on He (God the Word), came out of her at his human 
birth. This real Substance Union, which is the Personal Union, which is the 
Hypostatic Union, which, of course, necessarily implies the Incarnation, is 
opposed to the Nestorian denial of it, and of course to their denial of the Incar. 
nation also; for he who denies the Substance Union must necessarily deny the 
Inflesh. The Nestorians instead of the Substance Union made many other 
kinds which are cursed in Anathema IV. in the Definition of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council. I quote the whole of it as in Hammond’s translation; and, if 


ay Act I. of Ephesus. 


both ineffable and incomprehensible, and took the title ‘Son of Man’ 


God will, will comment on it somewhat when I come to publish it as part of the 
Fifth Ecumenical Council. 


Chapter or Anathema IV. in the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, 
held at Constantinople, A. D. 553: 


“If any one says that the Union of God the Word with a man was made 
According to Grace, or According to Operation, or According to Equality of Honor, 
or According to Authority, or According to Reference, or to Relation, or to Power, 
or According to Good Pleasure, on the ground that God the Word was pleased 
with the Man from His thinking well and good of him, as Theodore’ [of Mopsu- 
estia] ‘‘in his madness says; or’’ [if any one asserts a Union merely] ‘‘ According 
to the Sameness of Names, according to which the Nestorians calling God the 
Word, Jesus and Anointed (Χριστόν), and naming the Man separately Anointed 
(Χριστόν) and Son, and plainly asserting two Persons, do merely in title, and 
honor, and dignity, and worship (προσκυνήσιν), pretend to assert’’ [only] ‘‘one Per- 
son and one Anointed (Χριστόν); but does not confess the Union of God the Word 
with flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul, made According to 
Putting Together, that is According to Substance, as the holy Fathers have 
taught, and in that sense His’’ [but] ‘‘one Person, who is the Lord Jesus Anointed 
(Χριστός), one of the Holy Trinity, let such a one be anathema. For inasmuch 
as the Union is understood in many ways, those who follow the impiety of Apol- 
linaris and Eutyches, evidently desiring to cause to disappear the Things which 
came together”’ [that is, the Council means, the two distinct Natures, the Divinity 
and the humanity, and to substitute for them a Third Thing which is neither 
God nor man, but an impossible and blasphemous mixture of the Two] ‘‘advo- 
cate the Union by Mixing them Together; but those who hold the opinions of 
Theodore [of Mopsuestia] and Nestorius, delighting in the taking apart’’ [of the 
two Natures from each other] ‘‘bring in the Relative Union; whereas the holy 
Church of God rejecting the impiety of each heresy, confesses the Union of God 
the Word with His flesh by Putting them Together, which very thing is the 
Union according to Substance”’ [that is the Union in one Person, of the Substance 
of God the Word tothe Substance of the complete Man put on by Him in Mary’s 
womb, in which Man,God the Word’s Substance, has ever since remained]. ‘‘ For 
the Union by Putting Together in the mystery of the Anointed, not only pre- 
serves, unmixed with each other, the things’’ [that is the Two Natures], ‘‘which 
came together, but also refuses to admit any separating’’ [of them]. 


We see then that the Nestorians denied the actual Union of God the Word’s 
Substance to His humanity. They made Him to indwell their were human 
Christ by His Spirit only, much as He indwelt the prophets, in which case, 
of course, Christ would have been a mere man, and his indwelling by God the 
Word relative only, not aéiual. It would have been ve/ative in the sense of 
being indwelt by the mere sanétifying influence, not by the actual subsistence, 
that is not by the aétual substance of that Holy Spirit which is related to God 
the Word in the sense of being His Spirit as sent by Him according to John xv., 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 63. 


[158], not being such in will alone, nor, in good pleasure [alone] 


26; John xvi., 13-16, and so as being His Agent. From all this Nestorianism 

St. Cyril shows that it would follow that no part of the real substance of God 

was in the man born of Mary, and hence that the Nestorian Christ is a mere 

Man, that is a mere creature, and hence that all the Nestorians, who worshipped 

that mere creature, are creature-worshippers. And they all worshipped him 
relatively (σχετικῶς); that is they held to his relative worship, that is to his wor- 

ship relatively to God the Word who, they said relatively (κατὰ σχέσιν) indwelt 

that mere man, that is by His Spirit only Who is related to the Word as being 

His Spirit (Galat. iv., 6; Philip i., 19; II. Thess. ii., 8; compare John xiv., 26; 

John xv., 26; John xvi., 7-16). 

So that there is a close connection between the two heresies of Relative 
Indwelling only and Relative-Worship. Indeed, in the mind of the Nestorian 
the two were indissolubly linked together. Sometimes he used the expression 
Relative Conjunction as opposed to the Substance Union, and as another equiv- 
alent for Relative Indwelling. 


I have not space here to give all the passages of the Orthodox and the Nes- 
torians which I have gathered on those themes, but must leave that for the 
future when, if God stir up his servants to help me by giving to the Fund to 
Publish the VI. Councils, I shall hope to give them in separate Dissertations. 


It will suffice here to quote or mention a few out of many which will serve 
to help the reader to grasp the controversy more fully. 


And, 1, as to the Nestorian DENIAL OF THE INCARNATION and their doc- 
trine of mere RELATIVE UNION which goes with it. 


Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, the ablest scholar of the Nestorian party, in 
his Censure of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema I., plainly denies the reality 
of the Incarnation, for he writes: 


‘And we call that holy Virgin’? [that is Mary] ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God, 
NOT THAT SHE BROUGHT FORTH HIM WHO IS GOD BY NATURE, BUT THAT 
SHE BROUGHT FORTH A MAN UNITED TO THE GOD WHO FORMED HIM.”’ 
The Greek is in P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of the Works of Cyril of 
Alexandria, Vol. VI., page 392. The above means that the Union of the Man 
mentioned is not a Substance Union, but a merely moral and spiritual one 
such as every good man has with God, only Christ’s humanity as being per- 
fect is more closely joined to God the Word than ours. So that even, accord- 
ing to Theodoret here, it is of the same kind, only closer than ours. 

To show how close the Nestorians came to the Orthodox use of terms, when 
the context shows that their sense of them was, nevertheless, heretical, I quote 
more of the last mentioned place of Theodoret. Speaking of God the Word he 
writes: 

‘He was before the Worlds, and was God, and was with God, and was coex- 
istent with the Father, and was acknowledged and bowed to with the Fathes; 
but He thoroughly formed for Himself a temple in the Virgin’s womb, and war 


64 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[159], nor in the sense of taking to a man’s person merely ”’ [as he 


with that which was formed, and carried in the womb, and shaped and brought 
forth; and on that account we call that holy Virgin Bringer Forth of God, Not 
THAT SHE BROUGHT FORTH Him wHo Is Gop By NaTuRE,”’ [He means God 
the Word] “ΒΟΥ THAT SHE BROUGHT FORTH A MAN UNITED TO THE GoD WHO 
FORMED HIM.” 


Here the union is merely ve/ative, and the actual Incarnation is denied. 
For God the Word ‘‘was with’ the Man formed in Mary’s womb only as He 
was with John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb, that is by His Spirit to sanctify 
him: in which sense the angel who proclaimed John’s birth said of him: “He 
shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb,” Luke ΤΟΤΕ: 


Such a quasi-Orthodox use of terms often marks the writings of Theodoret 
and others of his party; so that it is no wonder that years after, that is in A. D. 
451, when he wished to take a seat in the Fourth Ecumenical Council, though 
he had by hook or crook persuaded Pope Leo I. of Rome that He was now 
Orthodox, the Eastern Bishops, who knew his craft and twistings well, would not 
admit him till they had forced him much against his will to anathematize Nesto- 
rius, his fellow heresiarch. Even then they had to threaten him with anathema 
for his refusal before he would. I here quote the Greek of the passage of Theo- 
doret just given. It is on pages 391, 392 of tome vi. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of 
Cyril of Alexandria’s works, and is part of his argument against Cyril’s Anath- 
ema I., and is as follows: 


Ὁ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ὑπάρχων καὶ Θεὸς dv καὶ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὧν καὶ τῴ Πατρὶ συνὼν 
καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς γνωριζόμενός τε καὶ προσκυνούμενος" ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ναὸν ἐν τῇ παρϑενικῇ 
γαστρὶ διαπλάσας συνῆν τᾷ πλασϑέντι καὶ κυηϑέντι καὶ μορφωϑέντι καὶ γεννηϑέντι. ov χάριν 
καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐκείνην παρϑένον, Θεοτόκον προσαγορεύομεν, οὐχ ὡς Θεὸν φύσει γεννήσασαν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄνϑρωπον τῷ διαπλάσαντι αὐτὸν ἡνωμένον Θεῷ. 


Cyril in his response in defence of that Anathema I., denounces the above 
statement of Theodoret as a denial of the Inflesh of the Eternal Word. 


And so, in his rejoinder to Theodoret’s censure of his Anathema X.., after 
stating that the Nestorians denied the real indwelling of God the Word’s Sub- 
stance in the Man taken out of Mary’s substance by Him he rebukes their error 
as follows: 


‘But those who depart from such right dogmas and oppose to the Scrip- 
tures of God their own harsh and arbitrary sense regard in them only what 
seems good to themselves, and assert that a’’ [mere] ‘‘man has been taken (avev- 
λήφθαι) by the Word of God, perhaps somehow in the sense that one of the holy 
prophets is said to have been taken ’’ [in the following passage]; “‘ / was not a 
prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I was a goatherd munching mulberries, and 
the Lord took me (ἀνέλαβέ με) out of the flocks’ [Amos vii., 14, 15, Septuagint]; 
‘‘or even as the blessed David says, ‘ 7he Lord taketh’’’ [to Himself] ‘‘ ‘zhe 
meek (᾿Αναλαμβάνων πρᾳεῖς ὁ Κύριος), [Psalm cxlvi., 6, Septuagint]; ‘‘that is, 
plainly, RELATIVELY AND AS REGARDS SPIRITUAL INTIMACY IN WILL, AND 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 65 


does to every good man] (160); ‘‘ but we say that’ [Two] ““ different 


GRACE AND SANCTIFICATION just as we also ourselves being joined unto the 
Lord are one spirit, as it is written [I. Cor. vi., 17]. 


“Βα that is not the doctrine that God has put on a man, nor moreover is it 
the doctrine that He like us has partaken of blood aud flesh; but on the con- 
trary it is the doctrine that He has’’ [merely] ‘‘ appropriated to Himself a man, 
and that too in no other way than He can be said to have appropriated to Him- 
self prophets and apostles, and all the other holy men’”’ (P. E. Pusey’s edition 
of the Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Works, Vol. VI., pages 471, 472). The 
Greek of the part last above is as follows: 


“᾿Αναλαμβάνων πρᾳεῖς ὁ Κύριος" [Psalm cxlvi. 6, Sept.] κατὰ σχέσιν δηλονότι καὶ 
οἰκειότητα τὴν πνευματικὴν, τὴν ὡς ἐν θελήσει καὶ χάριτι καὶ ἁγιασμῷ, καθὰ καὶ ἡμεῖς αὑτοὶ 
κολλώμενοι ““τῷ Κυρὶῳ ἕν πνεῦμα᾽" ἐσμεν, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον. ᾿Αλλ" οὐχὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ 
ἐνανθρωπῆσαι Θεὸν, οὔτε μὴν παραπλησίως ἡμῖν μετασχεῖν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός" οἰκειώσασθαι 
δὲ μᾶλλον ἄνθρωπον, καὶ οὐ καθ᾽ ἕτερον τρόπον ἢ καθ᾽ ὃν ἂν λέγοιτο καὶ προφήτας καὶ ἀποσ- 
τόλους καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας ἁγίους. 

St. Cyril in his Defence of his Twelve Chapters against Theodoret con- 
demns again and again that errorist and heretic’s notion of amere Relative 
Union between God the Word and His humanity, which consists in His in- 
dwelling that man by His Spirit only, in which way He is relatively united to 
every spiritually-minded man. See P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of Cyril’s 
Works, Vol. VI., pages 406, 416, 418, 440, 442, 472, top. 

Therefore, as holding that error, Theodoret, notwithstanding Cyril’s rebuke, 
calls Christ an zuspired man (id., pages 438, 440, 442). For at bottom he re- 
garded him as nothing else, though, like others of his party, he sometimes 
used language which might deceive those who did not understand his use of 
terms, and lead them to deem him Orthodox. 


Cyril’s do¢trine, in his Anathema III., as opposed to the Relative Union of 
Nestorius is that of the Nature[aot “Natural "| Union, (ka? ἕνωσιν φυσικήν), that is 
the union of the Nature, that is Substance of God the Word to flesh. Andrew 
of Samosata censures it in his remarks on that Anathema, as we see in Cyril’s 
Defence of his Chapters Against the Orientals. Andrew of course spoke there 
as a Nestorian. 

I have said that we must render, καθ᾽ ἔνωσιν φυσικήν, not by ‘Natural Union,” 
but by ‘“‘Nature-Union,;”’ and the reason for that is that no Union between God 
and a creature can be said to be zatura/ in the sense of coming of itself. but is 
made by God himself, for the Nature of God and that of man are not the same. 
Cyril’s meaning in the expression is that it is a Union in that the Nature, that is 
the Substance, of God the Word indwells and has indwelt the human nature, that 
is His humanity, since He put it on in the Virgin’s womb. 

So, St. Cyril, in his Defence of his Anathema V. Against Theodoret, speaks 
of the denial of the Incarnation by the Nestorians as resulting in a mere Re/a- 
tive Indwelling, so that, according to their notion, God the Word indwelt His 


66 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Natures were brought together in the real unity, and that from both 


humanity only as He indwells all other good men, that is by His Spirit only. 
His reasoning on that matter, on pages 440 and 442, of Vol. VI., of P. E. Pusey’s 
edition of Cyril’s works, is well worth reading. I quote a part of it, for my 
limits forbid more: 

‘‘But I am astounded that although he’’ [Theodoret] ‘‘everywhere strongly 
affirms that the Emmanuel is God, he is found in them to attribute to Him ”’ 
[only] ‘‘the prophetic measure; for he says that He is δ᾽ [mere] ‘‘inspired Man 
in order that He may appear like us who have the Lord of the Universe indwell- 
ing us by the Holy Spirit. For He dwells in our hearts”? [II. Cor.i., 22; Gal. 
iv., 6], ‘‘and we are temples of the living God” [I. Cor. 111., 16, 17; I. Cor. vi., 
19]. ‘‘But it is not the same thing to say that the Word was made man”’ [John 
i., 14: I. Cor. xv., 47; I. Tim. iii., 16; Heb. ii., 14-18], “‘and to think that Cad 
[merely] ‘‘dwelt in a man. For the blessed Paul’s saying is true, that ‘4d/ 
the fulness of the Godhead bodily,’ was well pleased to dwell in him’? [Colos. i1., 
9], ‘‘that is, not velatively (ov σχετικῶς); and yet”’ [he does not confound the 
Father and the Son there] ‘‘for he says that there is’? [but] ‘‘one God, the 
Father, and”? [but] ‘one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things” [1. 
Cor. viii., 6]. 

Then he goes of: further to argue against the Nestorian heresy of a mere 
Relative Indwelling, and at the end concludes as follows: 

‘‘And we remember that He’’ [God the Word] ‘‘called His own body a 
temple, but He has not made His indwelling’? [of it merely] “‘ velative (ov 
σχετικὴν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐνοίκησιν), for in that sense He dwells even in us by the 
Spirit, but He is deemed but One Christ and Son and Lord in a union.”’ 


Cyril again refers to the Relative Conjunétion of the Nestorians, in his reply 
to Theodoret’s censure on his Anathema X., for after a train of reasoning against 
his heresies, he concludes there as follows as to those errorists: 

“ΤῸ is clear therefore that they only pretend to acknowledge the Union to 
deceive the minds of the simpler sort; but they hold to a conjunction which is 
both external and relative, such as we also have’’ [to God the Word] ‘‘inasmuch 
as we have been made partakers of his divine Nature through the Spirit [II. 
Peter 1., 4]. 

‘“We must therefore pay no heed to their babblings, but to the correct and. 
blameless faith, and to the Evangelic and Apostolic Oracles.” 

I quote the Greek as on page 484, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of St. 
Cyril of Alexandria’s works in the Greek original. 

Πρόδηλον οὖν ὅτι πλάττονται μὲν ὁμολογεῖν τὴν ἕνωσιν, τὰς τῶν ἀπλουστέρων ὑποτρέ- 
χοντες γνώμας" συνάφειαν δὲ φρονοῦσι, τὴν ἔξωθέν τε καὶ σχετικὴν, ἣν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσχήκαμεν, 
κοινωνοὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ φύσεως ἀναδεδειγμένοι διὰ τοῦ Ἰ]νεύματος. 

Cyril in his Anathema XI., on the same page, 484, in strict accordance with. 
the use of the Anathema in Galatians i., 8, 9. curses the Nestorians because they 
denied the Inman and held to what they termed a mere ‘‘divine indwelling 
alone” of their mere human Christ by God the Word (τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Adyov: 

x ΧΟ ΧΟ Gc μόνην θείαν ἐνοίκησιν ἐσχηκότος.) That curse was approved and. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 67 


there is’’ [but] ‘‘ One Christ (161), and’’ [but] ‘‘one Son. Not that 


adopted as an utterance of the whole Church at Ephesus in its Third Council, 
when they approved and adopted the long Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, which 
contains it. 


And now, 2, to come to another Nestorian sequence of their heresy of mak- 
ing Christ, not God at all but a mere Man, that is the velative worship of that 
mere Man for the sake of God the Word or with reference to Him, who, they 
said, indwelt him by His Spirit’s zzfluences only as He indwells other men. ‘The 
Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity was relative to His Divinity as in effect 
is shown in Cyril’s Defence of his XII. Chapters Against Theodoret, under 
Anathema II., pages 404-406, of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of St. Cyril 
of Alexandria’s Works; that, as has been said, is the outcome of holding that 
Christ is a mere Man, so that there is nothing in him to worship but a mere man, 
that is a creature; in other words it is the result of believing in a mere Relative 
Indwelling of Christ’s humanity; that is an indwelling of it not by the Sub- 
stance of his Divinity but by the influences of His Spirit only. 


I quote Cyril’s words in that place: 


‘‘Forasmuch therefore as Nestorius everywhere does away the birth of God 
the Word in flesh, and brings in to us A UNITY OF DIGNITIES only, and says 
that a Man has been conjoined to God the Word, AND HONORED WITH THE 
SAME NAME Son”? [with God the Word]; ‘‘ we are compelled to contend against 
the errors of that’’ [heretic] ‘‘and to assert that the Union has been made .Su6d- 
stancely (ka? ὑπόστασιν); the expression sazbstancely (τοῦ Ka? ὑπόστασιν) meaning 
nothing but that the Nature (φύσις), that is the Substance (ὑπόστασις) of the Word, 
which is the Word Himself, has been really united to human nature, without 
any change and without any mingling together,” [of the two], ‘‘as we have 
said very often; and so Christ is deemed and is’’ [but] ‘one, the Same One 
being God and Man. 


‘‘And that thing, as I at least think, seems good to Theodoret himself also, 
for he says that God is not to be separated from’”’ [the] ‘‘human nature, nor, 
moreover, is the human nature to be deemed to be without” [the] ‘‘ Divinity. 
Therefore we say that ‘“‘the forim of the servant” and “the form of God” 
[Philip ii., 6. 7] “πᾶνε been united, and that not without their”? [two] ‘“‘sub- 
stances; and, furthermore, we do not define that a common man, HONORED 
WITH EQUALITY ONLY OF HONORS has been RELATIVELY CONJOINED to the 
Word, but we do define, as I have been saying, that the Son Himself of God, the 
Sole-born, really took on flesh, which was united to Himself, and has a rational 
soul, and so He became Man and nevertheless remained God also.” 


I quote the parts of the Greek most important to our purpose and theme: 

Οὐκοῦν οὔτε δίχα τῶν ὑποστάσεων δούλου τε Kai Θεοῦ μορφὴν ἡνῶσθαί φαμεν, οὔτε μὴν 
κοινὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἰσότητι μόνῃ τῶν ἀξιωμάτων τετιμημένον, σχετικῶς συνῆφϑαι τῷ Λόγῳ 
διοριζόμεϑα, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν, ὡς ἔφην, τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν Μονογενῆ, ete. 


Here the honoring of the Nestorian Christ, a mere man, ‘‘ wiTH EQUALITY 


68 Act 1. of £iphesus. 


the difference between the Natures has been done away by the Union, 


OF HONORS,”’ that is with honors eqnal to those given to God the Word includes 
the honor of worship, as Cyril so often explains elsewhere. 


In passing I would add that by the words, ‘And that thing, as I think, 
seems good to Theodoret himself,’ Cyril does not mean that Theodoret was 
Orthodox on all things, but only on the truth that the Two Natures are not 
mixed together, nor is either of them changed. That heresy all the Nestorians 
rejected. But, as the context shows, Theodoret held to the Nestorian heresies 
and championed them. Therefore the Fifth Synod, in its Definition and in its 
Anathema XIII., justly condemned his writings against the XII. Chapters of 
Cyril. 

The Eighth of Nestorius’ Counter-Anathemas against Cyril of Alexandria, 
bases, in effect, the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity on the heathen 
principle of Relative-Worship and defends it by it. I quote it all as on page 
244 of the second edition of Hahn’s Aibliothek der Symbole. It is as follows: 


Nestorius’ Counter Anathema VIII.: 


(ΤΡ any one says that ‘the form of a servant’ (Philip. ii., 7) is to be wor- 
shipped for its own sake, that is with reference to its own nature, and that it is 
Lord of all things’’ [in its own nature], ‘‘and does not on the contrary worship 
it because of its being associated, conjoined, and connected with the blessed, and 
of itself naturally Lordly Nature of the Sole-Born, let him be anathema.”’ 


So the Creed attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia makes the worship of 
Christ’s humanity Relative only. As found on pages 231, 232 of the second edi- 
tion of Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, where it is given as from Act VI. of this 
Third Ecumenical Council, and from the Council of Chalcedon, and from a 
Council of Constantinople, it has the following concerning Christ’s humanity, 
and the reason and kind of its worship: 


“It [Christ’s humanity], as having the inseparable conjunction with the 
Divine Nature {of the Word’’), ‘‘ receives worship from all the creation, all the 
creation giving bowing to it, BECAUSE OF ITS RELATION TO GOD AND IN CON. 
SIDERATION OF GOD.”’ 

(τὴν παρὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως δέχεται προσκύνησιν, ὡς ἀχώριστον πρός τὴυ ϑείαν φύσιν- 
ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ἀναφορᾷ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ πάσης αὐτῷ τῆς κτίσεως τὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπο- 
νεμούσης). The Theodore Creed continues; 

And we do not assert two sons or two Lords, for there is but one Son, who 
is God, as respects His substance, God the Word, the Sole-Boru Son of the 
Father, to whom that Man being united and partaking of Divinity’’ [or ‘‘ with 
Divinity’’], ‘‘shares in common with God the Word both the name and honor 
of Son. And forasmuch as God the Word is Lord by Nature, and that Man is 
conjoined to Him, ἀφ᾽ [the man] ‘‘ shares His” [the Word’s] ‘‘honor” [with 
Him]. And therefore we neither assert two Sons nor two Lords; for inasmuch 
85,1, He who as respects His [Divine] Substance is both Lord and Son, has the 
inseparable conjunction with him”? [that is, the man] ‘‘ who was taken for our 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 69 


but on the contrary that the Divinity and the humanity constitute 


salvation, Ae’’ [the man] ‘‘zs coexalted’’ [with God the Word] ‘‘wzth the name 
and the honor of Son and Lord; not that he’’ [the man] ‘‘is a Son in the sense 
that each one of us by himself is a Son (in which sense we are said by the 
Apostle Paul 'to be ‘many sons,’ (Heb. ii., 10), but he’’ [the man] “‘alone has 
that special distinction in the conjunction with God the Word, and sharing the 
Sonship and the Lordship” [with God the Word], ‘‘enables us to have all faith 
and thought and contemplation of him, in the conjunction with God the Word. 
ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THINGS THEREFORE HE’’ [THE MAN] ‘‘RECEIVES 
FROM ALI, THE CREATION THE WORSHIP AND EXALTATION OF GOD.”’ 

(ἀλλὰ μόνος ἐξαίρετον ἔχων τοῦτο Ev TH πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον συναφείᾳ, τῆς τε υἱότητος 
καὶ κυριότητος μετέχων, ἀναιρεῖ μὲν πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν δυάδος υἱῶν τε καὶ κυρίων, παρέχαι δὲ 
ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον συναφείᾳ πᾶσαν ἔχειν αὐτοῦ τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἔννοιαν καὶ 
τὴν θεωρίαν, ὑπὲρ ὧν δὴ καὶ τὴν προσκύνησιν καὶ ἀναφορὰν Θεοῦ παρὰ πάσης δέχεται τῆς 
κτίσεως. 

Hahn in his note 1186, page 232, tells us that Hardouin for καὶ ἀναφορὰν above 
conjectures κατ᾽ ἀναφοράν. In that case we should have to translate the last part 
above ‘‘ THEREFORE HE [the Man] RECEIVES FROM ALI, THE CREATION WOR- 
SHIP RELATIVELY TO GoD.’’ That does not differ materially in sense from the 
other rendering. And καὶ ἀναφοράν, makes good sense without Hardouin’s 
conjecture. 

We shall see further on how sternly the Third Synod of Christendom con- 
demned that Creed of Theodore, and how it made its famous Seventh Canon 
against it. 

Cyril’s Long Epistle which has the XII. Chapters, as we shall see, condemns 
in effect statements of Nestorius in which in effect he teaches the Relative-Wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity. And that Epistle was approved by that Council. 


We shall see further on in this very Act I. of Ephesus that one of the rea- 
sons for which Nestorius was deposed was his plain advocacy of worshipping 
Christ’s separate humanity relatively to God the Word. That idea and cavil of 
Relative-Worship is the very excuse of the heathen so often put forward by 
them to defend their paganism, and rebuked by the early Christian writers. 


In another note below on this Epistle will be found quotations from St. 
Cyril, from the Nestorians, and Decisions of Ecumenical Councils on the wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity. 

(157). Or, ‘‘ensouled,’’ Greek σάρκα ἐψυχομένην ψυχῇ λογικῇ. 

This the Apollinarian heretics denied. And yet the Nestorians 
slandered him by calling him an Apollinarian. 

(158). Instances where God the Word is called Sox of Man are Matt. xvi., 
13, compared with xvi., 16, and John vi., 62. In the former place Peter con- 
fesses Him to be ¢he ‘‘.Son of the Living God,’’ and the reference, as all the 
Orthodox admit, is to the Logos who by birth ‘‘came out of the Father before 
all the worlds,’’ as the Creed of the Second Synod of the Christian World words 


70 Act I. ef Ephesus. 


completely for us the one Lord and Anointed (162) and Son, by 


it. In John vi, 62, in the statement that “216 Son of Man”’ was to “‘ascend up 
where he was before,’’ that is to heaven, the ‘‘ where He was before,” can not 
mean that His humanity had been in heaven then, but must mean His Divinity, 
So He teaches in the context, John vi., 33, 38, 51. 


So in John iii., 13, the same meaning is conveyed in the words, ‘‘ Vo maz 
hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son 
of Man which is in heaven,’ for only God the Word had been in heaven before 
that. The do¢trine of the Economic Appropriation set forth in Cyril’s two 
Epistles (the above one and the one which has the XII. Anathemas), which 
were approved by the Third Council, is based on such and similar texts. 


(159). These are Nestorian heresies on the Union. For while denying the 
Divine Substance Union, that is the actual indwelling of the Man, taken from 
Mary’s Substance, by God the Word’s Divine and Eternal Substance, they 
wished to make up some sort of a Union, and so they said that God the Word 
was united to their mere Man born of Mary, that is their mere human Christ, in 
the sense of a union of their two wills, the divine will of course governing the 
human; or of [mere] good pleasure, ‘‘on the ground that God the Word”’ (as 
the Fourth Anathema of the Fifth Council words it), “was pleased with the 
[mere] J/an [who was the whole of the mere human Nestorian Christ] 2722 ¢hat 
He [God the Word] thought well and good of him [that is, of the mere Man} 
as Theodore {of Mopsuestia] in his raving says.’? Thatis, according to that, 
there was no union of the Substance of God the Word to the substance of the 
Man by a real Incarnation, but merely such a union of that Man’s mere will to 
God as exists more or less in every good man’s will to God the Word; or merely 
such a union of mere good pleasure as is consequent on any man’s will having 
become subject to God; that is, according to that, God the Word is well pleased 
with the Man because of the Man’s having first pleased him by obedience in 
faith and works. All that is merely a moral and spiritual, and external Union, 
such as exists between every truly Christian, pious soul and God the Word, only 
amore intimate moral and spiritnal Union so far as Christ’s humanity is con- 
cerned, because its obedience is perfect, whereas our obedience is imperfect at 
the best; for Christ’s humanity is a sinless creature, and ours is sinful. 


P. E. Pusey, in his 7hree Epistles of S. Cyril, page 56, refers, on the above 
words will and good pleasure in the Epistle, to Psalm xviii., 19, of the Septua- 
gint, ‘And He brought me out into a wide place; He wilt deliver me because 
He wished me,”’ ῥύσεταί pe, ὅτι ἠϑέλησέ με. 

A clearer reference to Christ’s wman will as subject to the Father’s divine 
will, occurs in Matthew xxvi., 39, where Christ as Man dreading that suffering 
from which His Divinity is ever exempt and which His humanity only must 
bear falls on his face and prays, ‘‘O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup 
pass away from me; nevertheless, zot as I will, but as thou wilt,” οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ 
ϑέλω, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ob. Now, as Cyril of Alexandria teaches, Christ prays as man, for 
as God He is prayed to. Hence the posture, prostration, and the words of the 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 71 


means of their ineffable and secret coming together in unity (163). 


prayer, including the reference to His will which He submits here and in verse 
42 to His Father’s divine will, all refer to His human will. And so that passage 
was a strong one against the One-Willites in the seventh century, and aided the 
Sixth Ecumenical Council in forming its decision against them. 

On the words good pleasure Pusey in the same note refers to the Septuagint 
of Isaiah lxii., 4, where God, addressing Jerusalem or Judah, says: ‘‘ dud thou 
shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; 
Sor thou shalt be called My Desire (ϑέλημα ἐμόν), and thy land Inhabited: FOR 
THE LORD HATH TAKEN PLEASURE IN THEE (ὅτε εὐδόκησε Κυριος ἐν oot), and thy 
land shall be inhabited.”’ 

That text is pertinent; but the Nestorians may have had in mind as the 
basis of their use of the expression good pleasure (εὐδοκία) the words of the 
Father to the Son after His baptism in the Jordan, ‘‘ Zhou art my beloved Son 
in whom [am well pleased’? ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα, (Mark i., 11; Matt. iii,, 17; Luke iii., 
22). For as their Christ was a mere man, they would hence understand those 
words of his mere humanity. I would add that the words, 7722 whom Lam well 
pleased,’’ are equivalent to, ‘‘ with whom I am well pleased,”’ in our English 
idiom. Bloomfield, in his New Testament, on Matthew iii., 17, explains the ἐν in 
the expression, ἐν ὦ εὐόκησα, as follows: ‘‘The use of the ἐν in this phrase is a 
Hebraism, occurring also in the Septuagint.” 

(160). Or, perhaps better, ‘‘nor yet as though He adopted a human person 
merely.”» The Greek here as in P. E. Pusey’s text reads, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ὡς ἐν προσ- 
λήψει προσώπου μόνου. The Latin Version given by Pusey, he says in his Preface 
to his edition of the Zhree Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, “ts 
believed to be Marius Mercator’s, and so to be of coeval antiquity with the”? 
Letter of Cyril itself. That, as on page 7 of Pusey’s edition, renders the above 
Greek, nec sicut in personae tantummodo susceptione. God the Word accepts 
the person of every man who truly turns to Him; for He says, “ Come unto Me 
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and [will give you rest”’ (Matt. xi,, 28); 
and so there is, in that sense, Union between God the Word and every devout 
Christian. But the Union of God the Word is of a very different nature from 
that; for, whereas God the Word indwells every Christian, not by His Eternal 
Substance but by the san¢tifying and saving influences of His Holy Spirit, He 
indwells the Man whom He put on in Mary’s womb by the actual Substance of 
His Eternal Divinity. And this, it is all-important to remember, for if we do 
not, we can not see the magnificent logic of Cyril and the Wisdom of the Church 
in approving it in the Third World-Council. For we may and must worship 
God the Word’s Eternal Divinity who dwells in Christ’s humanity as in a temple, 
as by and by we shall find Athanasius teaching; but we may not and must not 
worship a merely spiritual and san¢tifying zflwence of the Holy Ghost, or else 
we should be compelled to worship it in every devout Christian man, woman 
and child.. We doindeed worship the Eternal Substance of God the Holy Ghost, _ 
but not his world-wide zz/fluences which are in every man; in the evil to rebuke 
him for his sins and to woo him to repentance even though the sinrer may do 


72 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


And so it is said that, although He had His existence before the 


despite to the Spirit of Grace (Heb. x., 29), and in the good man to rebuke him 
for his shortcomings and falls, and to approve him for every good thought and 
word and deed which, by the Holy Spirit’s aid, he willingly and obediently 
does. God the Spirit’s influence in us is not His Substance, that is it is not God; 
and we must remember that Christ’s fundamental and binding law on that topic 
is, ‘‘ Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,’’ Matt. 
iv., 10. If we begin by bowing as an act of religious service to any thing other 
than His Substance, to which that and eyery other act of religious service are 
prerogative, we rouse the just anger of the God who calls himself Jealous (Exod. 
xx., 5,6; Deut. vi., 15; Exod. xxxiv., 14; Isaiah xlii., 8), by violating His law, 
and so are lost. For while we must heed and follow the blessed leadings of 
God’s Spirit, we must avoid the many absurdities and idolatries and man-wor- 
shippings which would be the inevitable consequence of mistaking and con- 
founding His Divinity and His influences. Let us remember that another sort 
of mixture, that is the confounding the Divinity of the Word and His humanity 
has resulted in that Monophysitism which the Universal Church in the Fourth 
World-Synod, the Fifth and the Sixth has anathematized. Anathema IX. of the 
Fifth Council is especially plain against that error. See it. 


I prefer to translate the Greek as I have given itin the text orabove. But P. 
E. Pusey here renders on page 56 οὗ his 7hree Epistles of S. Cyril, ‘‘ Nor yet 
by appendage of person only.’? But we must remember carefully and very clearly 
the fact that the Nestorians did not regard God the Word’s Sudstance as indwell- 
ing the Man, but only the zufluwences, not the divine Substance, of His Holy 
Spirit, and that the relation therefore of God the Word and the Man so far as 
the Substance of each is concerned, was and is wholly external to each other; so 
that the merely human Nestorian Christ was, according to their heresy, an 
appendage to God the Word in the sense that every other godly man is, that is. 
they and Christ are appendages to God the Word in the sense that He indwells 
each one of them, not by His Substance but by the san¢tifying influences of His 
Spirit, only that in the case of Christ’s perfect humanity the sanctification 15, 
much more complete than it isin other creatures. We are indeed taught that 
Christ’s humanity was sanctified by the Spirit (John 111., 34; Heb. ix., 14); but 
we, as Orthodox Christians, believe also that it was indwelt not merely by the 
sanctifying influences of the Holy Ghost but also by the actual Substance of 
God the Word, who put on that Man in the womb of the Virgin, and has ever 
since indwelt him. I would add, lest I may be understood to teach that the 
Nestorians admitted the perfect sinlessness of Christ’s humanity from the very 
first, that Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council seems to show that 
one of their founders and leaders, Theodore of Mopsuestia, did not, but believed 
that he progressed from a morally imperfect to a perfect moral state. See it. 


(161). Xpiordc, literally ‘‘ Anointed One.” 
(162). Greek, Χριστόν, 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 73 


worlds (164), and was born out of the Father (165), He was also 
born according to flesh, out of a woman (166). Not that his Divine 
Nature took the beginning of Its existence in the holy Virgin nor 
indeed that it absolutely needed, on Its own account, a second birth 
after that which was out of the Father. For it is both a rash and at 
the same time an unlearned thing to assert that He Who was before 
every world, and was co-eternal with the Father (167), needed a sec- 
ond beginning in order to exist. But because "707 us’’ and ‘‘for our 
salvation’ (168), the Word united to Himself Substancely the 
humanity, and came forth out of a woman (169); in that respect 


(163). Here Cyril confesses the crucial point against the error of the Apol- 
linarians, and against the Synusiasts, that is Cosubstancers, and antecedently 
against the later One-Natureites; that is he teaches as to the Two Natures, the 
Divinity and the humanity, that the difference between them has not ‘‘ been done 
away by the Union.”” Since therefore that remains they are two Natures still; a 
fact which of course destroys the Monophysite heresy, whether it be in the 
Apollinarian form or the Eutychian. This Epistle, as we shall see, was approved 
by a direct vote of the Third Ecumenical Couucil in A. D. 431, about twenty 
years before the Fourth Ecumenical Conncil (held A. D. 451), following out the 
teaching of the Third, condemned Eutyches and One-Natureism. Some men 
who do not understand St. Cyril forget this fact when they slanderously or 
ignorantly accuse him of Monophysitism. 

(164). John i., 1, 2, 3, 10; John xvii., 5; Colos. i., 16, 17; Heb. i., 2; Heb. 
πὶ; 2. 

(165). John viii., 42, 7 came out of God, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλϑον; and John 
Xvi., 28, in Tischendorf’s Greek Testament, Editio Ofava Critica Major, ἐξῆλϑον 
ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, I came out of the Father. Those texts mean, of course, that He 
came out of God the Father’s Substance, and hence is of one substance with 
Him. Wherefore in Hebrews i., 3, He is termed ‘‘ Charaéter of His Substance 
(Χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). But alas! those strong texts for the consubstan- 
tiality of the Son with the Father are almost wholly blurred in our Common 
Translation. But St. Athanasius and the other champions of Orthodoxy used 
them, in the senses I have given, with great power and success against the 
Arians, 


(166). Galat. iv., γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, ‘made out of a woman,” that is His 
humanity was taken out of her substance; “Mary, out of whom was born Jesus 
who ts called Christ,” Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήϑη ᾿Τησοῦς, etc. Matt. i., 16. 


(167). That follows necessarily from His having come oud of the Father as 
he teaches in John viii., 42, and John xvi., 28; and of His being therefore what 
He is termed in the Greek of Hebrewsi., 3, Character of His Substance (Xapaxriyp 
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ), and hence, of course, of one substance with Him. And 
hence as God’s Substance is eternal, aye the Sole eternal Thing, and as the 
Logos has it, He is co-eternal with the Father. 


(168). Cyril here quotes the Nicene Creed which he is explaining. 


74 Act I, of Ephesus. 


therefore He is said to have been born in the flesh (170). For it is 
not true that He was first born a common man out of the holy Vir- 
gin, and that then the Word descended upon Him (171), but being 
united to flesh in the womb itself (172), He is said to have under- 
gone a birth in the flesh, because He claims as His own the birth of 
His own flesh (173). So we say that He both “‘ suffered”’ and ‘‘vose 


(169). Greek, ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ ὁ Λόγος καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, literally ‘ The 
Word having united to Himself Substancely the Human thing came forth out 
ofa woman.’ The Greek says here “out ofa woman,” προῆλθεν ἐκ γυναικός. That 
is a close following on Cyril’s part of the literal sense of Holy Writ in such 
passages as Matt.i., 16, ‘‘out of whom was born Jesus who ts called Christ,” 
Greek ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς, etc. The same idea is in Luke ii., 7, ‘‘she drought 
forth (ἔτεκεν) her first brought forth Son;”’ and in other passages. Cyril makes 
much of Mary’s having actually brought forth God the Word in flesh taken out 
of her substance (“wade out of a woman,” γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, Galat. iv., 4), of 
Abraham’s and of David’s seed and line according to the prophecies, because it 
was necessary to guard the fundamental truth of the Inflesh of God the Werd, 
and to avoid the Nestorian worship of amere Man. See notes 156,173. Ishould 
add that inasmuch as in Christ there is but one Person, not two, when we speak 
of the Personal Union, we mean the Union of the Person of God the Word to 
the Man taken by Him in Mary’s womb; though since His Incarnation He and 
His humanity are called One Person in Two Natures. So when we use the 
expression Hyfostatic Union, as ὑπόστασις has two meanings in theology; 1, Sud- 
stance, and 2, Person, we mean in the first case the Union of the aétual Substance 
of Christ’s Divinity to the human substance of the Man put on by Him; and in 
the second case we mean the Personal Union as just explained above. 

(170.) John i., 14; Luke xxiv., 39; Acts ii., 30, 31, 32; Rom. i., 3; Rom. 
Vili., 3. 

(171). As has been said above, Nestorius denied any real, Personal indwell- 
ing of the divine Substance of the Word in the Man put on by Him, and taught 
in effect that He dwelt in that Man by His Spirit only, as He did in the 
Prophets and other holy men. This is called relative indwelling, as cpposed to 
the Substance indwelling. It is called relative also because the Holy Spirit is 
related to the Word as His Spirit. That doctrine of Nestorius Cyril opposes 
above. And, notwithstanding all efforts to clear Nestorius from the charge of 
maintaining that heresy, the facts show beyond all peradventure that he did 
maintain it, and not only it, but also the error of relative service to Christ’s 
separate humanity which in his mind went with it, and is Man-Worship,as Cyril 
calls it, that is Creature-Worship, that is Paganism. See what I have written in 
notes 156, 159 and 160 above on that matter. 

(172). Greek, asin P. E. Pusey’s text, ἐξ αὐτῆς μήτρας ἑνωθείς, literally “‘ oud 
of the womb itself;’’ that is, God the Word, as has been said above, united to 
Himself a Man in Mary’s womb, and came out of her, God and Man. . 


(173). Or, ‘because He appropriates to Himself the birth of His own 
flesh ;? ὡς τὴς ἰδίας σαρκὺς τὴν γέννησιν οἰκειούμενος, This is the doctrine of Eco- 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Eprstle to Nestorius. 75 


again’? (174), not that the Word of God suffered in His own [Divine] 
Nature either the stripes or the piercings of the nails or the other 
wounds, for His Divinity did not suffer, and that because It was 
without a body (175); but because that which had been made His 


ee 


nomic Appropriation (οἰκονομικὴν οἰκείωσιν), of the sufferings and death of the Man 
put on, to God the Word, to keep us, as St. Cyril explains, in Athanasius’ words, 
in his reply to Andrew of Samosota and the Orientals, on the XII, Chapters, from 
the Nestorian crime of worshipping a mere Man, as the Definition of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council also has it, following Cyril. For in its Anathema IX., it 
curses every one who “asserts that Christ is to be bowed to in Two Natures,” 
and commands us to ‘‘ dow with but one bow to God the Word fleshed with His 
own flesh.’ In what follows the above in Cyril’s short Letter, the doctrine of the 
Economic Appropriation is elaborated and stated at some length. So it isin the 
longer Epistle of Cyril which has the XII. Anathemas. In approving them the 
Third Christian-World-Council of course approved that doctrine. Some, ignor- 
ant of that decision, hold to the do¢trine which is its direct contradiction, and 
mere Nestorianism, namely, that the prerogatives of God the Word, such as 
omuipresence, and worship, may be given to His humanity, as they say, in the 
Eucharist. That error is part of the doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum, 
Communication of Properties. That is, in effect, condemned in Anathema VIII. 
of Cyril’s XII., which were approved at Ephesus. It is also, in effect, con- 
demned in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, and in the part of its 
Definition before the Anathemas. The other part of the dogma of the Commu- 
nication of Properties (if it be a part of it), that the sufferings and death of the 
Man put on may be Economically ascribed to His Divinity is, in effect, the 
Orthodox do¢trine of Economic Appropriation. 


St. Athanasius, as quoted with approval, and as a proof against Nestorian 
error by St. Cyril in his Defence of his XII. Chapters against the Orientals, 
attributes all the sufferings of Christ’s humanity to God the Word, but Econom- 
ically only in accordance with the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, and 
teaches in effect that this is done to avoid the idolatry of creature invocation. 
For after mentioning those sufferings, such as to be condemnated, to be beaten, 
to thirst, the cross and death and the rest of the sufferings, as belonging to that 
body which God the Word had put on, and which was therefore His and not 
another’s, and after Economically ascribing them to Him, inasmuch as they be- 
longed to that body which was His, though He Himself being God did not suffer 
at all, he proceeds to tell the reason for this Economic Appropriation: 

“« For that reason therefore logically and filly such sufferings are said not to 
be another's but the Lora’s, in order that the grace also [of redemption] may 
be from Him [God the Word], and THAT WE MAY NOT BECOME IDOLATERS, but 
TRULY WORSHIPPERS OF GOD, BECAUSE WE INVOKE NO CREATURE, NOR 
ANY COMMON MAN, BUT THE REAL, SON who as to His Nature has come out 
of God, and has been made Man, and yet is none the less Lord and God, and 
Saviour’? (Διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ἀκολούθως, Kai πρεπόντως οὐκ ἄλλου, ἀλλά τοῦ Κυρίου λέγεται 


76 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


own body suffered these indignities, He Himself (176) is said furth- 
ermore, in that sense, to have suffered [those things] for us. For 
the unsuffering [Word] was in the suffering body. And in the same 
way also we understand that He died. For in His Nature, the Word 
of God (177) is immortal and incorruptible, and He is Life [178] and 


τὰ τοιαῦτα πάϑη: ἵνα καὶ ἡ χάρις Tap’ αὐτοῦ εἴη, καὶ μὴ εἰδωλολάτραι γινόμεϑα [al. γινώμ- 
εϑα], ἀλλὰ ἀληϑῶς ϑευσεβεῖς, ὅτι μηδένα τῶν γεννητῶν, μὴ δὲ κοινόν τινα ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ τὸν 
ἐκ Θεοῦ φύσει καὶ ἀληθινὸν Υἱὸν, τοῦτον γενόμενον ἄνϑρωπον, οὐδὲν ἧττον τὸν Κύριον αὐτὸν, καὶ 
Θεὸν, καὶ Σωτῆρα ἐπικαλούμεϑα). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 76, col. 384, D. 


In Volume I. of Nicaea, in this series, I have quoted the above passage and 
several others from St. Athanasius to show his strong contending against Man- 
Worship and Creature-Worship, and for the Worship of God alone. See there, 
pages 236 to 240, and the eleven passages of Athanasius preceding, on pages 217- 
236, and the passages from St. Epiphanius on pages 240-247, and those from 
Lucifer of Cagliari and Faustin the presbyter, and Chromatius, on pages 
247-253. Ι 

Cyril in accordance with his doctrine of the Economic Appropriation to 
God the Word of the sufferings of His humanity, condemns in his Defence of 
his VIth. Chapter against_Theodoret, the following sayings of Nestorius: 


“Therefore the merciful High Priest who suffered is not the life-giving God 
of him who suffered.” 


‘He himself was both the new-born babe and the Lord of the new-born 
babe.’’ 


Cyril would have the suffering and the birth of the Man put on ascribed 
Economically to God the Word, to avoid Nestorian Man-Worship, as he explains 
above in his teacher, Athanasius’ words. 


(174). Cyril here quotes again the Nicene Creed, which he is explaining. 


(175.) Greek, ἀπαϑὲς yap τὸ ϑεῖον ὅτι καὶ ἀσώματον. The reference heres 
think, may be, not to the Father's Divinity, but to the Divinity of the Logos. 
So I have rendered above the ἔχων τὴν ὕπαρξιν, not as it literally is “‘ having the 
existence,” but ‘‘ having Ws existence,’’ as is common in translating the article 
in parts of Cyril’s writings when it refers separately to Christ’s Divinity, or to His 
humanity. In other words, I prefer to understand him as asserting that God 
the Word has no body of Divinity since He came out, by birth, of the Father’s 
“form”? (Philippians ii., 6), that is out of His body of Spirit, that is of Divinity, 
the sole body of God. Cyril was a nephew of that Theophilus, Bishop of Alex- 
andria, who, after being suspected of Origenistic heretical notions, that is of 
denying that God the Father has a body, came out strongly, and became, with 
St. Epiphanius of Constantia in Cyprus, a champion for the view that God has 
a body, against Chrysostom as I show elsewhere in a special Dissertation on that 
question of God’s having a body. And I presume that Cyril would naturally 
hold, as did his uncle, not to coarse materialistic views, but to the doé¢trine that 
He has a body of Spirit. See Volume I. of Nicaea in this series, page 199. At 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. Be 


Life-Giver (179). But, because His own body ‘“‘ by the grace of God,”’ 
as Paul says (180), fasted ‘‘ death for every man,’’ He Himself (181) 
is said to have suffered that death for us, not that it belongs to His 
[divine] Nature to experience death, for to say or to think that 


least I do not feel sure that he opposed the do¢trine of Tertullian and some 
others of the ancients that God the Father has a body of Spirit, that is of 
Divinity, which, of course, is incapable of suffering, for it is a part of God. 
The ancients sometimes use Spirit for Divinity, as we show elsewhere. See 
Cyril’s work against the Anthropomorphites, and Tertullian on Christ’s Flesh, 
Section XI., Against Praxeas, SeGtion VII, and Against Marcion, Book 2, 
Section XVI. 


Besides different expressions of the Nicene Creed teach that God the Father, 
to whom we pray, is not, as some would have it, a formless, shapeless cloud or 
mist or vapor floating about in endless space, but that He possesses substance, 
and a body of Spirit of course. For it speaks of the Logos as ‘‘of the same sub- 
stance as the Father,’ and as ‘‘ born out of the Substance of the Father, God out 
of God, * ὃ * Very God out of very God, born not made,’’ and the Anathema 
at its end curses those who say that the Son of God has come ‘‘ out of another 
Subsistence or Substance,’ than the Father’s. To avoid contradicting such ex- 
pressions I should prefer to understand Cyril here as asserting, what was his 
main scope, that God the Word, of which Part of the Divinity He is here speak- 
ing, has no body of Divinity. For the only body of God is that of the Father 
in which ‘“‘form of God”? (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, Philippians ii., 6), the Word was till He 
cune out of Him by birth. The Holy Ghost too was in that same form of the 
Father who, as all admit, is the sole Fountain of Divinity. When the Son 
would come to earth He shrouded that Divinity which zo man can see and live 
(Exodus xxxill., 20; Johni., 18; I. Tim. vi, 16), in the body which He took on 
Him in Mary’s womb; and when the Holy Ghost came down after the baptism 
of Christ in the Jordan He also shrouded His in the form of a dove (Matt. iii., 
16; Mark i., το; and Luke iii., 22). For what the Father says of the impossi- 
bility of man’s seeing Him is true of seeing His consubstantial Word and His 
consubstantial Spirit, for they are God also. ‘‘7here shall no man see me, and 
live,’’ Exod. xxxiii., 20. And so when God the Word before His birth of Mary 
appeared in flesh, as the ancient Christian writers understood it, He always 
shrouded His Divinity in a human or other form, as for instance when He ap- 
peared as a Man to Jacob. And yet Jacob knew that it was God, for we read, 
‘‘And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [that is, ‘the face of God ]’ for 
71 have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved,’ (Genesis xxxii., 24-32). 
And yet he had not seen the Substance of God the Word’s Divinity, but only the 
face of the human form which He had put on for that occasion; and Jacob may, 
perhaps, have understood that much even in that early day, when there had not 
been so full a revelation of God as there is now in the New Testament. So 
when Elijah stood at the mount and heard the voice of God, ‘‘he wrapped his 
Jace in his mantle,”’ for he feared to look upon Jehovah lest he might die (I. 
Kings xix., 13). And so deep-seated and general among the Israelites was the 


78 Ad 1, of Ephesus: 


would be madness, but that, as I have just said, His flesh tasted 
death. So also again, because His flesh was raised, that resurrec- 
tion is attributed to Him [the Word], not that He [the Word] fell 
under the power of corruption (God forbid!); but because His body 
was raised again (182). 


remembrance of God’s utterance in Exodus xxxiii., 20, that 20 man shall see 
His face, and live, that Manoah, who seemis to have mistaken the created sub- 
stance of the Angel’s face for the uncreated Substance of God the Father’s face, 
tells his wife, ‘‘We shall surely die, because we have seen God”’ (Judges xiii., 22). 
Bishop Patrick, of Ely, on that place teaches that the Angel there was God the 
Word within a human form. See his Commentary, on Judges xiii., 18, 19. Per- 
haps Gideon in Judges vi., 22, meant God the Word by “Angel of the Lord.” 
Compare Hosea xii., 4, with Gen. xxxii., 24-32. 


Yet he allowed Moses to see his ‘‘ back parts,’’ where the splendor would 
not perhaps be so great and dazzling and overpowering as on His face. See 
Rosenmiiller to that effect on Ex. xxxiii., 23. A description of the Father’s body 
which can not be explained away, notwithstanding every effort, is found in 
Daniel vii., 9 to 22. There things are mentioned which refer to His body, for 
He sits, and how can a man sit without a body? ‘‘7he hair of His head”’ is men- 
tioned, and the ‘(garment white as snow,’’ which covers His body. 


But of course we must not suppose that the self-existent God has digestive 
organs for he needs no food nor drink; nor may we ascribe to Him generative 
organs for Jehovah does not generate of women as man does, nor may we think 
of anything else as belonging to His Body of Spirit, that is of Divinity, which 
belongs to finite man’s imperfections, such as pain, sickness, and death. 


I would add in passing that Cyril does not here mean to deny that God the 
Word had a human body; for he has been teaching that above as a part of the 
Incarnation. 


(176). That is, God the Word. 


(177). Or, according to another reading, ἐκ Θεοῦ, ‘‘the Word who came out 
of God.” This is Mansi’s marginal reading. His text here has, ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος 


(778). John xiv., 6; Col. ui., 4; 1: John.i., 1, 2; Jotun vi,,.35) 4a. 
(179). John v2; 21; Τ᾿ Corixvy., 22545: 


(180). Heb.ii,9. On this Economically ascribing the sufferings and death 
of the man put on by the Word to the Word Himself, see what I have written 
in notes 142, 156, and especiaily 173, in this work on the doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation. I hope to publish a special Dissertation on that topic. How- 
ever strange it may appear at first, this language, adopted by the whole Church 
in the Third Ecumenical Synod, is well chosen and sound, if taken in Cyril’s 
sense as approved by the Third Council. 


(181) That is, God the Word. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 79 


So will we confess [but] one Anointed One and Lord, not that 


Cyril is here explaining still and enforcing the doctrine of Economical Ap- 
propriation which the Third Synod approved of course in approving the above 
Epistle. 


(182). Here Cyril ends on Economic Appropriation. Next he comes to 
denounce the Nestorian error of worshipping a mere man, their mere human 
Christ. That sin is called elsewhere by Cyril and the ancients ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 
Man-Worship. 


(183). Greek, as in Act I. of Chalcedon in full, in Hardouin’s Cozcilia, 
Οὕτω Χριστὸν ἕνα καὶ Κύριον ὁμολογήσομεν οὐχ ὡς avd pwrov συμπροσκυνοῦντες TO Λόγῳ ἵνα 
μὴ τοῦτο εἰς φάντασμα παρεισκρίνηται, διὰ τοῦ λέγειν τὸ Σύν" ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν 
προσκυνοῦντες, ὅτι μὴ ἀλλότριον τοῦ Λόγου τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, ped’ οὗ καὶ αὐτῷ συνεὸδρεύει τῷ 
Πατρί: οὐχ ὡς δύω πάλιν συνεδρευόντων υἱῶν, αλλ᾽ ὡς ἐνὸς καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν μετὰ τῆς [ἰδίας 
σαρκός. 

The term ἰδίας is found in Migne’s FPatrologia Graeca, tome 1xxvii., column 
48, and in Mansi’s Concilia, tome iv., column 889. Compare Migne’s Fatrologia 
Graeca, tome Ixxvii., column 45. 

We see above that St. Cyril denies that the Orthodox ‘‘ Co-bow to a Man 
with the Word, lest that thing be secretly brought in for a phantasm.”’ 

This is strong and plain language. 

Let us then inquire here briefly: 

1. What his teaching on that point ts; 

2. How far the Third Synod of the whole Church and the Three after tt 
have followed him, and what the doétrine of the Six World Councils on that 
point 15, and 

3. Let us quote some Nestorian writers on it against Cyril ee the Or- 
thodox. 

Of course, in a note we can merely summarize. We must defer a fuller 
treatment of the subject and other quotations till we publish a Dissertation on 
that subject. 

And, 1. What was Cyril’s teaching as to bowing to, that is worshipping, 
the humanity of Christ ? 

(A). An important passage is found on page 67 of the Oxford translation 
by P. E. Pusey of Cyril’s Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies ss Nes- 
torius, Book 2, Section 8. In his rendering it reads as follows: 


“Why, tell me, do you insult the Divine flesh? Albeit, you refuse not to 
worship it, while THE DUTY OF BEING WORSHIPPED BELONGS ONLY TO THE 
DIVINE AND INEFFABLE NATURE.”’ 

Here St. Cyril makes religious worship prerogative to the Divine Nature 
alone. 

The Greek of Cyril as above translated is as follows in P. E. Pusey’s edition 
of the Greek of Cyril of Alexandria’s Works, Vol. VI., page 119: 


80 Act I. of Ephesus. 


----- 


we bow to a Man /ogether with the Word, lest that thing be secretly 


Εἰ μὲν yap ἡνῶσθαι φὴς καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν τῷ ἐκ Θεοῦ φύντε Λόγῳ τὸ ἀνϑρώπινον, τὶ τὴν 
ϑείαν εἰπὲ μοι περιυβρίζεις capa; Καίτοι προσκυνεῖν αὐτῇ μὴ παραιτούμενος, πρέποντος μόνῃ 
τῇ ϑείᾳ τε καὶ ἀποῤῥήτῳ φύσει τοῦ προσκυνείσϑαι δεῖν. 


But to go into more detail; in the context just before, Nestorius, evidently 
supposing that St. Cyril held the Apollinarian heresy that Christ’s flesh had 
undergone deification (ἀποθέωσιν) by its Union with God the Word, contends on 
the contrary that the Union between the Two Natures has been made velatively 
only (σχετικῶς), Which would be such a Union as would leave the Two Natures 
external to each other, and the Nestorian Christ a mere man. To that Cyril 
replies in effect that that notion amounts in substance to a denial of the actual 
indwelling of the Human Nature of Christ by the Substance of His Divinity, 
and so to an actual denial of the Incarnation. And then he continues, address- 
ing Nestorius, as follows: 


‘‘And what then forsooth is the mode of what is called by thee Conjunétion”’ 
[of the Two Natures] ‘“‘conceived to be? For if indeed thou sayest that the 
Humanity has been united to the Substance of the Word who was born out of 
God, why, tell me, dost thou exceedingly insult the flesh of God, even indeed 
[by] not refusing to bow to it? Whereas TO BE BOWED TO BEFITS AND IS DUE 
[that is, is prerogative] TO THE DIVINE AND INEFFABLE NATURE ALONE.” I 
have translated προσκυνεῖν literally, as it means, bow, for Cyril, as all admit, refers 
here to religious bowing, that is to bowing as the most common act of religious 
service, which, with every other act of religious service, is prerogative to God’s 
Substance alone, according to Christ’s law, ‘‘ Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy 
God, and Him only shalt thou serve,’’ Matt. iv., 10. In other words Cyril uses 
bowing here for every act of religious worship, for in prayer we bow when we 
kneel, when we prostrate ourselves, and when we stand. Hence in the New 
Testament and in the Christian Fathers it is so often used: 


1. For acceptable religious service, that is to the true God. It is used also, 

2. For forbidden worship, as to idols, for instance; and 

3. For mere non-religious bowing, done as an act of mere human love or 
respect to the good and bad alike. 


(B.) Cyril, in view of the infinite superiority of the Creator Word, God the 
Son, to His created humanity, just before speaks of the Two Natures as follows: 


‘‘ They are parted from each other by incomparable differences.’? Compare 
Pusey’s translation on page 66 of his S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
Against Nestorius. 


(C.) Soin Section 2 of his Scholia, page 187 in Pusey, id., he writes: 
“ Incomparable ts the difference between Godhead and Manhood, and ex- 
ceeding great the difference between the Natures” (τῶν φύσεων). 


That is a thought that he dwells on again and again. See under ‘‘ Mature 
of God the Son Incarnate’ in Pusey’s /ndex. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 81 


brought in for a phantasm, cn account of our saying together with 
ΝΕ A eee ee ee 

And indeed every sound man can at once see the infinite difference between 
the divine Nature of the Word and the created humanity which He put on in 
Mary’s womb. And he makes it a chief duty reverently to preserve to the 
divine Nature every act of religious Worship, be it bowing, prayer, kneeling, 
prostration, incense, or any other, for none of them can be shared by any crea 
ture, no not even by the Nestorian separated humanity of Christ, much less by any 
other creature, lower down in the scale than that separated humanity, be it the 
Virgin Mary, archangel, angel, martyr or saint, or any other creature whosoever. 


The Nestorians agreed with Cyril that all acts of worship belong to God, 
but like the heathen and the present Greek Church, and the Roman commun- 
ion, and the Nestorian, and the Monophysite, they held that they can be given 
to Christ’s humanity, and the Eucharist, relatively (σχετικῶς) to God the Word, 
that is for His sake. 


(D.) Nestorius had taken Cyril for an Apollinarian. Indeed, on page 69, id., 
of Pusey, he addresses him, or one of his Orthodox belief, as ‘‘ Apollinaris.”’ 
And so he accuses him of “the deification of the holy flesh (ἀποϑέωσιν * * τῆς 
ἁγίας σαρκός), of Christ. Cyril justly denies that charge and shows in effect that 
Nestorius was guilty of that sin in making the Magi bow to, that is worship 
Christ’s mere separated humanity (id., pages 68, 69). For such bowing was, of 
course, an act of worship. 


(E.) So, just below, Nestorius, speaking of Christ’s humanity alone as hav- 
ing suffered, writes: 


“That Man endured the three days’ death; and 7 bow to that Man together 
with the Divinity inasmuch as he is a co-speaker of the divine authority,’ προσκυνῷ 
δὲ σὺν τῇ ϑεότητι τοῦτον, ὥς τῆς ϑείας συνήγορον αὐϑεντίας. He seems to mean that the 
Man, the mere creature, is co-speaker (and as he says below) co-worker also 
with God Himself. So that God the Word’s peculiar utterances are as much a 
creature’s as God’s. 


(F.) In Section 5, Book 2, of his /zve Book Contradiétion of the Blas- 
phemies of Nestorius (pages 58, 59, of Pusey’s translation, Cyril quotes 
Nestorius’ own words which show that the heresiarch gave a creature the rank 
of the Creator. I quote the place, correcting the translation: 


“Now therefore thou wilt be proven to have blasphemed even against the 
very Nature of the Word, for thou saidst again: 


«« «Say of Him [God the Word] who took [a Man] that He is God; add of 
him who was taken that heis the form of a servant [Philip ii., 7]; bring in 
after those things the dignity of the Conjunétion (τῆς ovvageiac), that the sway of 
the Two may be common, that the dignity of the Two may be the same; and 
the [Two] Natures remaining, acknowledge the unity of their rank.’ ”’ 


In response Cyril blames Nestorius’ separation of the Two Natures, and 
then adds: 


82 Act I. of Ephesus. 


but that we bow as to One and the Same; for the body of the Word is 


(G.) ‘Why therefore dost thou deem it a worthy thing to gather into one 
sway, as thou thyself sayest, and to crown with equal honors the [Two] Things. 
[that is Christ’s Divinity and His humanity] which are so far apart by their two 
different Substances from participation with each. other, and, moreover, from 
equality also? For where a nature is wholly inferior [like, the Man’s], and the 
other Nature [God the Word’s Divinity] is above it how can there accrue to it 
[the Man’s] an equality of honors, and a sharing of [the same], dignity, and 
the manner of its glory be not different from the other’s. The Greek of the 
above is in P. E. Pusey’s edition of the original of Cyril’s Works, Vol. VI., 
page iii. Compare his translation of S. Cyril on the Incarnation, page 58. 


(H.) Yet so illogical was the mind of Nestorius that after giving the divine 
honors of God the Word to a mere creature, he could not see that by worship- 
ping that Man he in effect was making him a god, for he speaks of that crea- 
ture as being ‘‘ brought into exact Conjunction, not detfication.”? Compare 
Pusey’s translation, page 64. Cyril shows in the context that the heresiarch 
practically deified that creature. See Pusey, id., pages 68, 69. 


(I.) Again in Section X., Book 2, of his Five Book Contradiétion of the Blas- 
phemies of Nestorius, St. Cyril blames him for opposing the doctrine of Eco- 
nomic Appropriation in that he referred Christ’s sufferings to His humanity only, 
whereas Cyril would have him refer them Aconxomically to God the Word; and 
then proceeds to censure him for worshipping Christ’s separate humanity, thus: 


‘‘But he [Nestorius] confesses that he bows to that Man fogether with the 
Divinity [of God the Word] (προσκυνεῖν δὲ ὁμολογεῖ σὺν τῇ ϑεότητι τοῦτον), and what 
is still more impious, as though He were not, it seems, really God and Son, but 
had been made [merely] an advocate [or ‘‘co-speaker’’] of the authority [or 
‘‘of the sway’’] of the Word. For that he clearly severs [the Two Natures] he 
furthermore makes plain by his confession that 14 [Christ’s humanity] ought to 
be co-bowed to, together with the Divinity (σὺν τῇ ϑεότητι προσκυνεϊσϑαι). For that 
which is co-bowed to with another thing (τὸ yap ἑτέρῳ ovurpockvvobpever), is other 
than that with which (μεθ᾽ ov) it is said to be bowed to. But we have been wont 
to honor the Emmanuel [that is as Emmanuel means, the God with us] with but 
one bow (μεᾷ προσκυνήσει), not separating from the Word the body which has been 
united to Him Substancely.”’ 


(J.) In the same Section, further on, Cyril referring again to Nestorius’ use 
above of the term συνήγορος, that is advocate or co-speaker of the divine authority 
or sway, again accuses him of making Christ’s humanity a God by bowing to it. 
I quote: 

‘“And when thou sayest advocacy that is co-speaking, thou, moreover con- 
fessest, even though thou art not willing to, that it is nothing else than to speak 
with another [or ‘‘for another ’’], thou who mentionest to us Conjunétion (ovva- 
yevav), and cuttest the one Christ (Χριστόν) and Lord into two, and then worship- 
pest (mpookvveic) them, or rather co-worshippest (συμπροσκυνεῖς) them; and thou 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 83 


not [a thing] foreign to Himself; [for] within [or ‘‘ with’ ]it He Him- 


thinkest to free the Church from the accusation of making a god, when thou. 
thyself makest a Man to be God ; and thou wilt not say that the Son is but One; 
though He should not be thought of as without His own flesh; for then wilt thou. 
bow (προσκυνήσεις) to Him and be irreproachable; and thou wilt know where thou. 
wast, as it is written, departing from the dogmas of the truth.’’ 


(K.) After all that, Nestorius, as quoted at the end of Section X. of this 
Book 2 of St. Cyril’s Five Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 
falls back on the old heathen plea of Relative Worship to defend his bowing to 
his mere human Christ, and mis-alleges for that error, as his party did after him, 
Philippians ii., 5-12; whereas, as Cyril elsewhere shows, the worship there given 
is to Him who was ‘‘zz the form of God’’ before He took on flesh in Mary’s 
womb, as is clear from verse 6 there. So the exaltation and the name above 
every name in that passage belong, as he shows, to God the Word. I quote: 
Nestorius writes, of Christ’s mere humanity, the Man, to use his terminology, 
conjoined to the Word: 


“ΕἼ worship him as an image of Absolute Divinity (Σέβω αὐτὸν͵ ὡς τῆς παντοκρά- 
τορος εἰκόνα Θεότητος), for He [God the Father] ‘hath highly exalted him and 
given him a name which ts above every name, that at (or ‘tn’) the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under 
the earth and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ ts Lord.’ ”? 


(L.) To this St. Cyril replies: 


“And who, again, will he be conceived to be, whom he confesses that he at 
least thinks to worship and pretends to honor for his likeness to God, but that 
Man surely whom he but just now mentioned to us, and calls, I know not why, 
a co-speaker or a co-worker of the divine sway? Whom he senselessly kept say- 
ing ought to he co-bowed to with the Divinity [of the Word] (ὃν τῇ ϑεότητε συμ- 
προσκυνεῖσϑαι δεῖν ἀνοήτως épackev) as being another and peculiar son aside from the 
Word of God. And he says that ἀξ [the Man] has been exalted by the God and 
Father; and moreover that he has also received the name which 1s above every 
name, in order that every knee may bow to him of things in heaven, and things 
on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord (Philip. ii., 9, 10, 11). Since indeed therefore the Father 
hath placed on high Him [the Word] who was God by Nature even before the 
here mentioned exaltation, on investigating the mode of the intervening abase- 
ment we shall find a certain wise Economy, according to which He [the Word] 
having been dishonored for that intervening period, returned again into [the pos- 
session of ] those things which were always His and which are inherent in His 
very Substance, and into His own exaltations. But if that be not so, as he 
[Nestorius] therefore thinks and asserts, and has made another besides the Word 
of God [that is] THE MAN CONJOINED TO HIM, TO BE BOWED TO (7pookvv776v) 
BY HEAVEN AND EARTH AND BY THE THINGS STILL LOWER, HE HAS, THEREFORE, 
MADE A GOD OUT OF A MAN, and, as no other cavil in the world was left to him, 


8. Act I. of Ephesus. 


self co-sits with the Father, not however that two Sons are sitting to 


he will accuse us of wishing to deify one who is not God, although it was 
[logically] necessary for him [in that case] to fasten on the God and Father 
Himself the accusations of the sin in that very matter. [Cyril means that Nes- - 
torius charged God with the sin of teaching in Philippians ii., 9, 10, 11, the 
worship of a mere Man, whereas Cyril asserts again and again elsewhere that 
the exaltation and worship there mentioned by kneeling, etc., belonged to God 
the Word]. See now, therefore, O, thou learner of the doctrine of Christ, where 
his [Nestorius’] reasonings have at last burst forth; and in what sort of a se- 
quence the contrivances of that very sheer miscounsel of his have resulted. 
Whereas we [on the contrary] assert that the Son who is God by Nature, that is 
the Word who came out of God the! Father, came down in a voluntary emptying 
[Philippians ii., 7, literally, “1712 emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,” 
etc. ]; and went up again, and that too with flesh into the God-befitting dignity 
of the pre-eminence which is inherent in Him, FoR Hk [the Word] IS wor- 
SHIPPED EVEN WITHIN [or ‘‘with’’] FLESH, AS HE WAS TO BE WORSHIPPED ALSO 
before it [flesh, existed] (προσκυνεῖται yap καὶ μετὰ σαρκὸς, ὡς Kai πρὸ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχων 
πρροσκυνητὸς, ἦν γὰρ καὶ ἔτι κατὰ φύσιν Θεὸς, καὶ πρὸ τῆς κενώσεως, etc.), for He was and 
still remains God by Nature, both before the emptying, and when He is said to 
have endured the emptying and to have been made a Man like us. But he 
{ Nestorius] despising those dogmas, so deserving of respect and unadulterated, 
conjoins (συνάπτει) a man to God accerding to his [Nestorius’] merely external 
velation (κατά ye τὴν ἔξωϑεν σχέσιν), and IS NOT ASHAMED TO CO-WORSHIP (συμπροσ- 
κυνεῖν) HIM [that mere Man] IN AN EQUALITY OF RANK AND AS ONE [Person] 
witH ANOTHER. And he maintains and asserts that he [Nestorius’ merely 
human Christ] received as something unwonted and strange and as a matter of 
favor, that Zo him every knee shall bow, and, moreover, that every tongue shall 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And since he [Nestorius] says that he was not 
God by Nature, he has plainly blasphemed by saying that the Nature of the Di- 
vinity is a creature! And if he [Nestorius’ mere human Christ] received his dig- 
nity [of being worshipped] not at all by [his] nature, but as a gift and from with- 
out, and so to speak by an utterance only [of God in Philip. 11., 9, 10, 11], 1S THAT 
NOT TO SAY PLAINLY THAT WE HAVE SERVED (λελατρεύκαμεν) THAT WHICH BY 
NATURE IS NOT Gop? And with us, as it seems, the sober carefulness of the 
spirits above has been also led astray, and the Father Himself is both source and 
pretext of those things to us! Why then should He still blame those who have 
chosento bow to the creature besides Him? (τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τῇ κτίσει προσκυνεῖν ἢρημέ- 
νους). And why is it written [in Holy Writ] that He punishes those who have 
gone astray, if the going astray has been in accordance with His own commands, 
He Himself having declared to us [in Philip. ii., 9, 10, 11] that he who is not by 
Nature God is to be bowed to (προσκυνητόν) by us? But since he [Nestorius] has 
adduced that passage on those matters, I mean that which is in our hands, 
namely, that every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, but, (with what design I know not), has passed by the last 
part of it, which has been added by the blessed Paul as a necessary part of the 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 85 


gether, but that He sits as one; in union with His flesh (183). But 


whole connection, come let us add that and say, For every tongue shall con- 
Jess that Jesus Christ ts Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philip. ii., 11]. 
Therefore ΤΕ HE IS NOT GoD By NATURE, AND Hk [the Father] savs THAT 
BECAUSE OF HIS [that Man’s] HAVING a relative conjunction [διὰ συνάφειαν δὲ 
σχετικήν), [mean to the Word who has come out of God, H¥ [that Man] Is ΤῸ BE 
BOWED TO (προσκυνεῖσϑαί() BOTH BY OURSELVES AND BY THE HOLY ANGELS, 
WHAT SORT OF GLORY HAS BEEN INVENTED THEN BY THE FATHER THAT 
THE CREATURE [Nestorius’ mere human Christ] SHOULD BE MADE A GOD 
ALONG WITH HIMSELF (τῷ ϑεοποιεῖσϑαι σὺν αὐτῷ τὴν κτίσιν)! And [it will follow 
that] ΗΕ [the Father] HAS BEEN AGGRIEVED WITHOUT ANY CAUSE AT SOME 
FOR DOING THAT THING [of worshipping a creature]. AND IF THAT THING 
[of worshipping a creature] WERE To His [the Father’s] GLORY, WHY SHOULD 
WE NOT DEEM THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO DO THAT THING WORTHY OF 
RECOMPENSE AND PRAISE AND GLORY? 


(M.) ‘‘But perhaps they may say, In what way will it be to the Father’s 
glory that every knee shall bow to the Emmanuel? [that is, as Emmanuel 
means, to the God with us. Matt. i., 22]. 


(N.) ‘“[I reply], Because the Word being God by Nature and having come 
out of Him, that is, out of His Substance, was made flesh [John i., 14], and is 
bowed to (προσκυνεῖται) as I have been saying, as one and sole and real Son, with 
[or ‘‘within’’] His own flesh (μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός). And moreover the Father 
is glorified as God by having the true Son who was born out of His Substance. 
And He gave Him, made flesh, for us in order that by His suffering in flesh He 
may save all under heaven, 2722 order that he that believeth in Him may not per- 
ish but have eternal life [John iii., 16], that every one that seeth Him may see 
the Father { John xiv., 9]. And the Son Himself has shown that that thing is 
really life-giving to us, for He has said, 7hzs zs the eternal life, that they may 
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent [John 
xvii., 3]. And this and no other is the path to the straight and most unerring 
line of thought; but he [Nestorius] mixing up all things above and below, 
says: ; 

(O.) ‘‘ ‘For the sake of Him [God the Word] who weers, 7 worship him [the 
Man] who ts worn, because of Him |God the Word] who ts hidden, I bow to him 
[the Man] who 15 seen.’ [Aca τὸν φοροῦντα, φησὶ, τὸν φορούμενον σέβω" διὰ TOV κεκρυμμὲ- 
νον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον]. Notice again, I pray, how he [Nestorius] everywhere 
flees from the Union, and fears the truth, and avoids the correctness of the dog- 
mas of God. He who wears is not another besides him who 15 worn, but, on 
the contrary, the Same One conceived of as in a meeting of Divinity and hu- 
manity, and as really One and Sole Son of the God and Father. Therefore 
WORSHIP GOD THE WORD, WHO CAME OUT OF THE FATHER, AS ONE WITH 
[or “within’’?] HIS OWN FLESH [ἕνα προσκύνει μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὑτοῦ σαρκὸς τὸν ἐκ 
Θεοῦ Λόγον]. For tell me if I do not seem to thee to think those things which 
are seemly, when I thrust aside thy dry talk on those matters as feeble? For 


86 Act 7. of Ephesus. 


if we reject the Substance Union (184) either as incomprehensible or 


suppose some one should choose to say of any one whosoever of men lixe us, or 
of any one of the Kings on earth, Mor the sake of the King’s Soul 7 reverence 
his body, because of him who is hidden I bow to him who 15 seen [Aca τὴν τοῦ 
Βασιλέως ψυχὴν σέβω τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν κεκρυμμένον προσκυνῶ TOV φαινόμενον] would 
not some one straightway chide him; O thou there, what art thou doing? One 
man surely is the Ruler even though he be evidently made up of two things; I 
mean of a soul and a body. 


Why, therefore, art thou babbling in a random way to us by naming ὦ 
Wearer and a worn, a Hidden One, and a seen one, and by PROFESSING TO CO- 
BOW [To THEM] AS ONE PERSON WITH ANOTHER [kal ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ συμπροσκυνεὶν 
ὁμολογῶν], and [so] dishonoring the mode of the Union? Whereas the God-in- 
spired Scripture reveals to us [but] one Christ and Lord, the Word Who came 
out of God the Father, with for ‘‘within’’] His own body [τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς 
Λόγον, μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος]. Knowest thou not that He healed in Jerusalem the 
man who had been blind from his birth, and that afterwards finding him on the 
holy place, He put into him a firm and settled faith in Himself? For He came 

-to him and asked. Dost thou believe on the Son of God? And when to that μα 
cried out Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him, He Himself again said, 
Thou hast both seen Him and He it is that talketh with thee [John ix., 35, 36 
and 37]. Thou seest how He showed him not the Wearer, not the Hidden 
within, but rather Himself, as One with [or ‘‘ within’’] His flesh [ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἕνα 
μᾶλλον ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς. And so indeed the wise John says: What was from 
the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we 
have gazed upon, and our hands have handled about the Word of Life [1. John 
i., 1]. And yet the Divinity is not touchable; but it has become touchable, so 
to speak, through its own flesh. It is invisible by Nature, but it was manifest 
through the body. 


But thou on the other hand separatest [the Natures] in every way, and deal- 
est craftily with the truth, by separating the Natures, avd UNITING, as thou 
sayest, THE WORSHIP [τὴν προσκύνησιν, the bowing]. But if thou partest the 
Natures, the peculiar things which belong naturally to the Nature of each will 
also separate and go with its own Nature; and the count of the difference [be- 
tween the Two] will drive through everything. In that case there will be con- 
fessedly Two [Persons]. [Cyril means that if Nestorius denies the Inflesh he 
must make Two Persons of Christ, and separate the Natures, and so to be logical 
he must separate their attributes, and so agree with the Orthodox in worship- 
ping in Christ God the Word, not a Man. See the passage A above. ] 


But tell me, for I ask it, what isit that separates the Natures from each 
other, and what is the mode of their difference. But thou wilt, I suppose, surely 
answer that one thing by nature is man, that is humanity, and another God, 
that is Divinity, and that the One [God the Word] is incomparably exalted above 
the other, and, moreover, that the other [the Man] is as much inferior to It as 
Man isto God. How THEN, TELL, ME, DOST THOU DEEM IT A WORTHY THING 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 87 


as unbefitting, we fall into the error of saying that there are two 


TO HONOR WITH [but] ONE BOW [μιᾷ προσκυνῆσει)] THOSE THINGS SO UNLIKE 
EACH OTHER IN NATURE, and parted as regards their mode of being by incom- 
parable differences? FoR IF THOU PUT ABOUT A HORSE THE GLORY OF A MAN, 
WILT THOU DO ANYTHING PRAISEWORTHY? WILT THOU NOT RATHER OUT 
AND OUT INSULT THE SUPERIOR BEING BY DRAGGING DOWN HIS BETTER 
NATURE INTO DISHONOR? [Cyril means that if a man gives any act of religious 
service to Christ’s separate humanity after the Nestorian fashion, he thereby oud 
and out insults the superior Nature, that is the Divinity of God the Word, by 
dragging It down into dishonor by giving what is prerogative to Divinity alone 
to the mere created nature of the Man put on, which he writes above is as 7n/e- 
vior to the Word asa man is to God. If this principle of its being an insult 
to God the Word to bow to Christ’s humanity as an act of religious service, be- 
cause as Cyril teaches in A, all religious service is prerogative to God, how much 
more is it an insult to God if we give bowing or any other act of religious ser- 
vice to any creature less than Christ’s humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, any 
angel or saint or martyr! And how much greater an insult to God is it to give 
worship to inanimate things, such as pictures, graven images, crosses, relics or 
altars, or any other mere thing. 


Cyril without any break proceeds]. But he [Nestorius] has invented some- 
thing wise in his own defence, for he subjoins, 


(P.) “Not by itself God is that which was formed in the womb, not by itself 
God is that which was formed by the Spirit; not by itself God ts that which was 
buried in the tomb, for if we had thought so, we would have been manifestly 
worshippers of a Man and worshippers of a corpse [οὕτω yap av ἦμεν ἀνθρωπουλάτ- 
pat καὶ νεκρολάτραι σαφεῖς]. But since God ts in the Man who was taken, from 
Him [the Word] who took, he who was taken [the Man] as being conjoined to 
Him [the Word] who took him, is co-called God with Him.” 


[This is plain Man-Worship and Relic Worship on the heathen plea of Fe/- 
ative Worship. 


St. Cyril at once replies]: 


(Q.) ‘‘Lo, again he [Nestorius] who everywhere uses the expression ‘the 
Conjunttion’ [τὴν συνάφειαν] and fears ACCUSATIONS OF WORSHIPPING A MAN IS 
CAUGHT AND PROVEN TO BE A WORSHIPPER OF A MAN [καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπολατρείας 
ἐγκλήματα δεδιὼς, ἥλω γεγονὼς ἀνθρωπολάτρης], and is held fast in the meshes of his 
own ill-counsel, and detected as having fallen into a reprobate mind. For, says 
he, that which was brought forth for thee out of the womb, ts not by itself God. 
How I wonder at thy shrewdness and thy so subtle mind! For who has dared 
to say that at all? Or who does not know that what is born out of the flesh ts flesh 
[John iii.,6]. But it was the own flesh of the Word, and He is deemed [but] One 
with [or ‘‘within’’] it (uer’ αὐτῆρ), just as we have just plainly said that the soul 
of aman also is one with [or ‘‘within ''] his own body [μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος]. If 
therefore any one should say of us too, The body by itself is not a Man, would 
he not, in all fairness, be named superfluous in words and a talker at random ? 


88 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Sons. For [in that case] there is every necessity that we separate 


For no one will deny that the body by itself is not a man, but on the contrary 
will admit that it should be called a body of aman. Nevertheless no one would 
cut apart and place separate from each other the soul and the body, and say that 
the body is co-called a soul with the soul in order to exhibit one Man; for such 
a statement would not be a seemly one, but on the contrary would be full of 
ignorance; but bringing both together into a natural Union in order to make up 
[but] one man, will then name them a man; and so he will not seem to say 
what is both low and unseemly. If, therefore, any one be wholly wise and 
possessed of understanding, he must say that that which has come out of a 
woman [Mary the Virgin] is a body, and must confess besides that it, having 
been brought together with the Word in the Substance Union [τῇ kav’ ὑπόστασιν 
ἑνώσει], has made up the one Christ (Χριστόν) and Son and Lord, the Same One 
being God and man. But now abandoning that and FALLING AWAY FROM THE 
ROAD TO WHAT IS RIGHT HE HASTENS ALONG HIS PERVERSE WAY, AND OUT 
AND OUT PROCLAIMS TWO GODS, ONE WHO IS SUCH IN NATURE AND IN 
REALITY, THAT IS THE WORD WHO HAS COME OUT OF GOD THE FATHER, 
AND ANOTHER BESIDES HIM WHO IS CO-NAMED GOD WITH HIM. And yet, 
as to that way of speaking, no one wouid say of any man like us that he co- 
lived with himself alone, but on the contrary that he co-lived with another. 
And if any one should say of some one of the Kings on earth that he co-reigns 
with himself, he would, in all fairness, deserve to be laughed at, and would be 
babbling by ascribing what was said of one Person only to two, and by assert- 
ing it of them as though it belonged to two. So it would be utterly senseless to 
suppose that the expression co-named can be used of but one, Sole Person. For, 
if it could properly be used, they would by all means be two; and one would be 
God by Nature, and the other would be co-named God with Him, only in an 
external sense, and in the sense that his Godship had been acquired from outside 
of himself, and He would be exhibited to us as a mew God. Does then He who 
is by Nature and in very truth God of all things lie when he says, // thou wilt 
hearken to me, there shall be no new god in thee, nor shalt thou bow to a foreign 
god [οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ Θεὸς πρόσφατος, οὐδὲ προσκυνήσεις Θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ, Psalm 1xxx., 9, 
Sept.] Besides why have we bowed to the Christ, and why shall every knee 
bend to Him [Philip ii., 10], and why dost thou profess to worship him, although 
THOUGH FEAREST AS THOU HAST BEEN SAYING, TO SEEM TO BE A WOR- 
SHIPPER OF A MAN [εἶτα πῶς προσκεκυνήκαμεν τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ αὐτῷ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ ; 
πῶς δὲ καὶ σέβειν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖς ; καίτοι δεδιὼς, ὡς ἔφης, τὸ ἀνϑρωπολάτρης εἷναι δοκεῖν]. 


(R.) But he has, as he supposes, a sort of wise answer, besides to all those 
questions, namely, that he [the mere Man] is co-named God [with the Word} 
because he has been conjoined to Him [the Word] who took him [the Man]. 


(S.) How, tell me, was he [the Man] ¢aken, or in what way was he conjoined 
[to the Word]? If it was by a real Union, I mean the Substance Union [τὴν kat” 
ὑπόστασιν] cease to part that which has been united. And I deem it aseasonable 
thing to say to thee who cuttest apart that which can not be cut apart, What God 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 89 


[the Two Natures] and that we say that one who is properly a [mere] 


hath joined together, let no man put asunder [Matt. xix.,6]. But if thou say 
that the /aking, that is the Conjunction was external and relative (σχετικήν), how 
comes it that thou knowest not that God is in us also and that we are conjoined 
to God relatively, and have been made partakers of the divine Nature [11. Peter 
i., 4]. Indeed the God-inspired David sings, JZy soul is joined fast behind thee 
[Psalm 1Χχ11., 8, Sept]. Shall we also therefore, according to him [Nestorius], 
be co-called gods with Him who is God by Nature, and shall every knee bend to 
us also? What the God and Father hath enjoined on the Spirits above let the 
God-inspired Paul come forward and teach. For he saith, When He bringeth 
in the First Brought Forth into the inhabited world (τὴν οἱκουμένῃν), He saith, 
And let all God’s angels bow to Him [Heb. i., 6]. Since therefore thy wise 
notion [of the relative co-worship of Christ’s humanity with God the Word] has 
not been added in those words [of God the Father], but as He [the Father] hath, 
on the contrary, commanded that He [God the Son] be worshipped (προσκυνεῖσϑαι) 
surely as one only, and not as one Person [the Nestorian mere Man] together 
with Another (σὺν ἑτέρῳ) [οὐ the Word]; who then is He who is bowed to by 
the angels, though the Scriptures of God call Him ¢he First Brought Forth 
[τὸν Πρωτότοκον Heb, i., 6, etc. ]? But we say that the Word who hath come out 
of God the Father hath been named First Brought Forth because He hath been 
made Man, and First Brought Forth (Πρωτότοκον) among many Brethren [Rom. 
viii., 29]; though He is God by Nature and Son and Sole-Born, and is not to 
be deemed of the same order as the creature as respects His Divinity. One 
therefore is He who is bowed to by the spirits above [Heb. i., 6, that is] the 
Word who came out of God the Father, within [or ‘‘ with’’] His own flesh (Εἷς 
οὖν ἄρα πρὸς τῶν ἄνω πνευμάτων ὁ προσκυνούμενος, ὁ ἐκ Θεου Πατρὸς Λόγος μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας 
σαρκός); for then did He [the Father] bring Him [the Logos] forth [or ‘‘ cause 
Him to be brought forth’’| and He [the Word] is deemed /7zrst Brought Forth 
as being the First in all things (τότε yap τέτοκε, καὶ ὡς πρωτεύων ἐν πᾶσι, νοεῖται 
πρωτότοκος, Col. i., 18). 

(T.) But whereas the God-inspired Scriptures proclaim that there is [but] 
One Anointed (Χριστὸν) and Son and Lord, this here superfluous fellow [Nesto- 
rius] on the contrary, proclaims that there are two, and ADDS A WORSHIPPED 
MAN TO THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTIAL TRINITY, AND IS NOT ASHAMED 
(kai προσκυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ ὁμοουσίῳ Τριάδι προστιϑεὶς, οὐκ αἰσχύνεταν), for 
he says: 

‘But this kinsman, according to the flesh, of Israel, he who as to his appear- 
ance is [only] a Man, he who as Paul expresses it, was born of the seed of David 
(Rom. i., 3], 7s, by reason of the conjunétion, Almighty God.’ ‘then to those 
words he [Nestorius] adds: 

‘Hear Paul proclaiming both. He confesses first the Man; and then he 
calls that which is seen God, by reason of his conjunction to God, that no man 
may suspect the Christian of being a worshipper of a Man (καὶ τότε τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
συναφείᾳ Θεολογεῖ τὸ φαινόμενον" iva μηδεὶς ἀνθρωπολάτρην τὸν Χριστιανὸν ὑποπτεί). 
Let us guard therefore the conjunction of the Natures without mixing them. 


90 Act I. of Ephesus. 


man is [nevertheless] honored with the appellation of ‘he Son;, and, 


Let us acknowledge the One God. Let us worship the Man who is co-bowed to 
with Almighty God [the Word] because of the divine conjunction’ [of the Two] 
(σέβωμεν τὸν τῇ Θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῳ παντοκράτορι Θεῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον avd pwrov), 

(U.) [To conclude], If then indeed when thou namest a Man, thou acknowl- 
edgest that with him also is He who is God Himself by Nature, all will be well, 
and I will cease. But if thou partest the Natures, not only in respect of know- 
ing, which is the human nature, and which, on the other hand, is the divine, 
but also on the contrary in such a way as to separate them from their concur- 
rence in unity, thou art confessedly A WORSHIPPER OF A MAN, and we will 
say to thee, Zhou shalt eat the fruits of thy labors [Isaiah iii., 10]. And being 
hard and spurning admonition go alone on the perverted way. But we seeking 
out the pious and blameless path of the holy Fathers, and being very well in- 
structed in both the Apostolic and Gospel writings, [the Epistles and Gospels ?] 
will honor together with the God and Father and the Holy Ghost, the one Lord 
Jesus Christ with [but] one bow (μιᾷ προσκυνήσει), though Whom and with Whom 
to the God and Father, together with the Holy Ghost (σὺν τῷ ‘Ayiw Πνεύματι) be | 
glory for ever; Amen.”’ 

And so ends the Second Book of St. Cyril’s Five Book Contradiéiton of the 
Blasphemies of Nestorius. 1 have followed P. E. Pusey’s Greek in Vol. VI. of 
his edition of Cyril. 

As we see in the long quotation from Cyril last above, he contends that the 
Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity results in a worshipped Tetrad, that is a 
Quaternity, that is a Four, instead of a Trinity; that is in the worship of 


τ Phe Rather ¢ 


2. His consubstantial Word ; 
3. His consubstantial Spirit; and 
4. The merely human Nestorian Christ. 


The outcome would be (A), so far as the Three divine Persons are con- 
cerned, the Worship of God (Θεολατρεία); and, (B), so far as the mere Man is con- 
cerned it would be the worship of a Man (ἀνϑρωπολατρείαγ, that is the worship of 
a creature (κτισματολατρεία), in direct opposition to Christ’s fundamental law of 
religious service, Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou 
serve (Matt. iv., 10). 

Whereas the doérine of Cyril, approved by the Third Council, A. D. 431, is 
the Worship of God alone, that is: 


tr ~ The Father’: 

2. His consubstantial Word; and 

3. His consubstantial Spirit, in strict conformity to Christ’s command in 
Matt. iv., 10, as above quoted. 


To show St. Cyril’s condemnation of 7etradism, that is of Hourism I quote 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 91 


See “ὁ ἠἐἠ ἐτἝ τ -Ξἷ“Ξ βΞπΞ ἕπτ -----ςςςς-ςς-Ο-ρ-ςςςςςςς-ςς-----ςο-ς--ςς-ς-ςςς-ςς-ςς---ς-ς--- 


again, that we say on the other hand that He Who is properly the 


three passages only, and refer to others on Man-Worship, for the limits of an 
already long note forbid me to do more: 

(V.) Passage 7, from Settion VI., of Book IV., of St. Cyril's Five-Book 
Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 

Cyril is here contending against the Nestorian heresy that Christ’s human- 
ity is to be worshipped in heaven, and is answering their perversion of Matt. 
xxiv., 30, “‘ They shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with 
great glory,’ and Zech. xii., 10, ‘‘7hey shall look on Him whom they pierced,”’ 
and their questions anent those texts, namely, 


“Who then ἐς he who was pierced? The side. But does a side belong to 
a body, or does it belong to Divinity ?’’ Nestorius evidently believed here, as 
elsewhere, that St. Cyril was an Apollinarian and denied that Christ has a human 
body; and he makes Christ out, after the Nestorian wont, to be a mere Man, and 
hence it necessarily follows, that all worship of Him must be mere Man-Wor- 
ship. Cyril replies to such blasphemy at some length, and then concludes on 
that matter as follows: 


‘“He [God the Word] therefore will come, who suffered the death in a 
human way, but has been raised in a divine way, and has ascended into the 
heavens: and He sitteth in all state on the thrones of the ineffable Divinity, 
and co-sitteth with the Father, the Seraphim standing around, in a circle, that 
is, and the highest powers, not ignorant of the measure of the service due by 
them [to Him], every authority and power and lordship worshipping Him (προσ- 
κυνούσης Te Αὐτῷ καὶ ἐξουσίας ἁπάσης δυνάμεώς τε Kai KvpLoryToc), for every knee shall 
bow to Him, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of 
God the Father [Philip ii., 10, 11]. But He will come, as I have been saying, 
and will appear not in that state which befits littleness, like ours ; but, on the 
contrary, in the most God-befitting glory, heaven and the spirits above encom- 
passing Him, like a spear-bearing body guard, as their God and King, and 
standing [in attendance] by the Lord of all. Butif, on the contrary, the Word 
of God the Father is not in flesh, that is, if He has not been made Man, but 
Christ was a mere God-inspired Man, who had a side of a body, and endured the 
piercing, how comes it that he is seen in the thrones of the highest Divinity, 
and exhibited to us asa new God [πρόσφατος Θεός, Psalm 1xxx., 9, Sept.], as a 
sort of Fourth God [or ‘‘a sort of Fourth Person”’] after the Holy Trinity ? 
Hast THOU NOT SHUDDERED [at the thought of worshipping] A COMMON 
MAN, WHEN THOU CONTRIVEDST THE WORSHIP TO THAT CREATURE? ARE 
WE THEN HELD FAST IN THE ANCIENT SNARES [of creature-worship]? Has 
THE HOLY MULTITUDE OF THE SPIRITS ABOVE BEEN DECEIVED WITH US, AND 
HAS IT GIVEN DRUNKARDS’ INSULTS TO Gop? [The reference is to Heb. 1, 
6, where we read, ‘‘ And again when He [the Father] bringeth in the First 
Brought Forth into the inhabited world He saith, And let all the angels of God 
bow to Him, which the Nestorians so outrageously perverted as to insult God 
by making Him command the sin of worshipping a creature, their mere human 


92 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Word come out of God has both the name and the reality of Sonship 


Christ ; whereas Cyril and the Orthodox held that the worship there done was 
to God the Word alone, in strict accordance with Christ’s command in Matt. iv., 
10. The reference is alsoto the worship commanded in Philip. 1i., 9, 10, 11, to 
be done to the Son, and the name above every name, that is God’s name there 
given Him, which is a part of worship, and to give it to a creature is to worship 
him. The Nestorians held that both referred to Christ’s humanity and there- 
fore authorized creature-worship ; whereas Cyril in consonance with Matt. iv., 
10, limits the worship there to God the Word.] SINCE WE HAVE BEEN RAN- 
SOMED FROM THE ANCIENT DECEIT [the sin of worshipping creatures, the sin 
of the heathen], AND HAVE REFUSED AS A BLASPHEMOUS THING TO WORSHIP 
THE CREATURE, WHY DOST THOU WHELM US AGAIN IN THE ANCIENT SINS AND 
MAKE US WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN? [that is of a mere human Christ]. For we 
know and have believed that the Word who came out of God the Father came 
in ataking of flesh and blood. But forasmuch as He has remained God, He 
has kept through all the dignity of the pre-eminence over all which is inherent 
in Him, albeit He is in flesh as we are. But being God even now no less than 
of old, although He has been made Man, He has heaven as His worshipper and 
the earth as His adorer [λάτρην ἔχει τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ προσκυνοῦσαν τὴν γῆν], for it is 
written “The earth ts full of Thy praise; Thy excellency, O Lord, has covered 
the heavens.” 


I here append the Greek for the above translation from ‘But if on the 
contrary’? to ‘“‘worshippers of a Man”’ inclusive. It is found on page 204, 
volume vi., of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of Cyril’s works: 


Eézep οὗν ἐστὶν οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ μᾶλλον ἤγουν ἄνϑρωπος γεγονὼς ὁ Tov Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγος, 
ἄνϑρωπος δὲ ϑεοφόρος πλευράν ἔχων σὼῶματος καὶ ὑπομείνας τὴν διακέντησιν, πῶς ἐν ϑρόνοις 
ὁρᾶται, τῆς ἀνωτάτω ϑεότητος τέταρτος ὥσπερ τις ἡμῖν μετὰ τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα πρόσφατος 
Θεὸς ἀναδεδειγμένος; οὐ καταπέφρικας κοινὸν ἄνϑρωπον, τῇ κτίσει τὸ σέβας ἑπινοῶν; ἀρα τοῖς 
ἀρχαίοις ἐνισχήμεϑα βρόχοις; apa πεπαρῷνηκεν εἰς Θεὸν, καὶ πεπλάνηται μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἡ ἁγία 
τῶν ἄνω πνευμάτων πληϑύς; εἰ τῆς ἀρχαίας ἀπάτης ἑκλελυτρώμεϑα, τὸ τῇ κτίσει λατρεύειν ὡς 
δυσσεβὲς παραιτούμενοι, Ti TAAL ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐγκλήμασιν ἐνιεὶς ἀποφαίνεις ἀνϑρωπο- 
λάτρας. 

(W.) Passage 2, against Tetradism. Itis “from the First Book of Cyril 
of holy Memory entitled Christ 1s One, against Theodore’’ [οἵ Mopsuestia], as 
the Latin of the title has it on page 523, of Vol. III. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of 
Cyrilli in D. Joannis Evangelium, It is given there in a Latin translation; I 
translate that Latin : 


‘For there are, there are [persons] who deny their Redeemer and Lord, and 
assert that He who in the last times of the world endured for our sakes birth in 
flesh out of a woman, is not indeed the real Son of God the Father, but, on the 
contrary, that A RECENT AND LATE GOD HAS APPEARED TO THE WORLD, and 
that he has the glory of a Sonship which has been acquired from without as ours 
also has, and that he glories in certain adulterous quast honors, so that it is now 
ihe worship of a Man and nothing else, and a certain Man ts adored with the 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 93. 


by His very Nature (185). The One Lord Jesus Anointed must not 


Holy Trinity, as well by us as by the holy angels [the reference in angels being 
to Heb. i., 6, Aud when He [the Father] dringeth the First Brought Forth into 
the inhabited world He saith, And let all God’s angels bow to Him; which 
Nestorins and his partisans perverted into a command to worship Christ’s 
humanity, whereas, as St. Cyril rightly teaches, in accordance with Matt. iv., 
10, itis acommand to worship God the Word, not a creature]. Some persons 
who are very proud and wise in their great knowledge of the Scriptures of God, 
have inserted those heresies into their writings, and so, as the Lord of all says 
by one of the holy prophets, 7hey have set a trap to corrupt men [Jerem. v., 26]. 
For what else than a snare and a stumbling block is a tongue which utters 
things which are perverse and abhorrent to the Holy Scriptures, and which 
shamelessly oppose the tradition of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists? We 
must therefore repudiate those men who are guilty of such wicked crimes, 
whether they are among the living or not; for it is necessary to withdraw from 
that which is injurious, and not to have regard to any one’s person, but to what 
pleases God.’’ 


The Latin for the above isin P. E. Pusey as above. The reference to those 
who are ‘‘among the living’ is to Nestorius and his partisans then living; the 
reference to those 7202 living is to Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
who had taught in their writings Nestorius and his the errors which wrecked 
them. But the Nestorians then as now greatly esteemed those founders of Nes- 
torianism and would not part from them, notwithstanding the wise and needed 
warnings of Cyril. For they had died in the outer pale of the Church and had 
by Cyril’s time acquired much authority in Syria. 

I quote a part of the Latin of the above: ‘Ex primo Libro sunciae mem- 
oriae Cyrilli de eo quod Unus est Christus, contra Theodorum : 


Sunt enim, sunt qui Redemptorem et Dominum suum negant, et Filium 
quidem verum Dei Patris non dicunt eum esse, qui in ultimis seculi temporibus 
ex muliere secundum carnem nativitatem propter nos sustinuit; apparuisse 
autem magis orbi terrarum Deum recentem et posterum, ideas: gloriam ex- 
trinsecus acquisitam habentem sicut et nos, et quasi habentem adulterinis glori- 
antem honoribus, ut jam anthropolatria et nihil aliud esset, et adoretur homo 
aliquis cum sancta Trinitate tam a nobis, quam a sanctis angelis. Haec quidam 
valde superbi, et magna sapientes in divinarum Scripturarum scientia, suis scrip- 
tis inseruerunt, et sicut dicit omnium Dominus per unum sanctorum Prophet- 
arum, ‘Lagueum statuit ad corrumpendos homines.’ Quid enim aliud sit, quam 
laqueus et scandalum, lingua loquens distorta et sacris literis abhorrentia, et 
traditioni sanétorum Apostolorum et Evangelistarum impudenter resistentia. 
Recusandum igitur eos, qui tam malis culpis obnoxii sunt, sive in vivis sunt, 
sive non. Ab illo enim quod nocet, recedere, necessarium est, et non ad perso- 
nam respicere, sed ad quod Dei placet. 


(X.) Passage IIT. on Tetradism. It is from Cyril Against Diodore of 
Tarsus, a Founder of Nestorianism. It is found in a Latin translation on page 


9: Ac I, of Ephesus. 


therefore be divided into two Sons. Moreover, if it were so done, it 


309 of Volume III. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of Cyril on the.Gospel 
according to John. Its end is mistranslated by Pusey, on page 335 of his 
translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 1 
therefore translate it here. It is as follows: 


‘‘Thou darest also to clothe in the Master’s forms him, whom thou sayest 
to be a Man from Mary, and who at first was not at all different from us nor supe- 
rior to us, but afterwards by much effort merited the name and the divine glory 
of the Son, that is after he had come out of the womb. Therefore, ACCORDING 
TO THY OPINION, there are two Sons, AND CHRIST IS A NEW GOD who was 
endowed with supernatural honor from God somewhat more than the rest of the 
creatures; so that He [God the Word] is co-adored with a mere Man; even that 
Man who in the course of time, and only towards the end [of his earthly career] 
got possession of glory and WAS MADE A COMPLEMENT OF THE TRINITY AND 
IN NATURE EQUAL TO IT.”’ 


Against the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity, Cyril’s utterances are 
many. His holy soul, zealous for the truth that God alone is to be worshipped 
Matt. iv., 10], and jealous for Jehovah, like Elijah and Athanasius before 
him, could not but speak out against the Nestorian heresy of Man-Worship 
(ἀνϑρωπολατρεία). I can refer here only to some of his utterancesin P. E. Pusey’s 
English translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Againsi Nes- 
torius. They are as follows, pages 39, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 
67, 68, 69, 70 to 80 inclusive ; most of pages 70 to 80 is given in my translation 
above ; 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 97, 119, 120, 162, 168, 169, 175, 176, 197, I99, 208, 
212, 213, 229, 230, 231, 232, 255, 256-257, 259, 260, 273, 310, 264, 266-320, 326, 332, 
335, 345, 353, 354, 355, 358, 362. 
These utterances are in that volume. But there are others in other works 
of St. Cyril. See the indexes to them under proper terms. 


St. Cyril of Alexandria, in Section 35 of his Scholia on the Incarnation, 
makes the fact that worship is done to Christ a proof of His Divinity, (pages 
224, 229 of P. E. Pusey’s translation). In other words, he shows that he held 
that every act of religious service is prerogative to Almighty God. In that re- 
spect he follows the doctrine of Christ in Matt. iv., το, (which he quotesin place 
after place as forbidding the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity) and of 
Christ's champion against Arianism, St. Athanasius, Cyril’s predecessor in the 
see of Alexandria and his teacher, and the doctrine of Epiphanius and the De- 
cisions cf the VI. Councils: see Volume I. of Nicaea in this series, pages 217- 
256. 

: We have seen under (A) above, that St. Cyril teaches that ‘‘7o be bowed 
to befits and ts due to the Divine and ineffable Nature alone.”’ 


That is his uniform and noble teaching as against the Nestorian worship of 
Christ’s humanity. 

(X.) Three texts are urged especially by him again and again as the basis 
for that doctrine. I mention them here with a quotation from him under each: 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 95 


would in no respect serve as an aid to the right doctrine of the faith, 


(1.) Psalm lxxx., 9, Septuagint; (Psalm lxxxi., 9, of our Common English 
Version:) ‘‘Zhere shall be no new God in thee, and thou shalt not bow to a for- 
eign god.”’ 

We have an instance of the use of that text against the Nestorian worship 
of Christ’s humanity in this note under Q above, on page 88. See it there in 
full. See others on pages 259 and 273. 


(Y.) (2.) Isaiah xlii., 8, “Zam the Lord; that is my name; I will not give 
my glory to another, nor my praises to graven images.” 


In Section 1, Book 2 of his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemtes 
of Nestorius, Cyril refers to Nestorius’ Man Worship as opposing that Law of 
God. For he writes as follows in refutation of the Nestorian error that Christ’s 
humanity has been elevated to the rank and name of God with the Word: 


‘‘And tell me this too, for I will ask it as a matter of necessity, what good 
did the rank [of equality with God the Word] do to the [mere] Man who, as 
thou thyself hast been saying, was born out of a woman and conjoined to God 
the Word? Did it make him equal in glory and pre-eminence [to God the 
Word] and did it make him to be as great as He himself [the Word] should be 
believed to be? How then will He [God] not speak falsely when He says, J/y 
glory will Inot give to another [Isaiah xlii., 8]? And the inspired Psalmist also 
. [if that be true] has spoken nonsensically and falsely to us when he says some- 
where as follows: ‘Who among the clouds shall be made equal unto the 
Lord? Or Who among the sons of God shall be made like to the Lord?’ 
[Psalm lxxxix., 6].’’ 


Then St. Cyril goes on to show that no creature can share the honor and 
glory and worship of God even relatively (σχέσει) according to the Nestorian 
error of Christ’s humanity being relatively honored and worshipped by what 
they called its conjunftion to God the Word. See the context on pages 46 and 
47 of P. E. Pusey’s translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
Against Nestorius. 


Cyril again uses Isaiah xlii., 8, against the Nestorian Worship of Christ’s 
humanity, in his work entitled Christ is One. ‘The place is on pages 262, 263 of 
P. KE. Pusey’s translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
Nestorius. 


(Z.) (3.) St. Cyril argues that Christ’s own words in Matt. iv., 10, ‘‘ Thou 
shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,”’ forhid the Nes- 
torian worship of Christ’s humanity. For in his Scholia on the Inman of the 
Sole-Born, Se&tion 25, he writes: ‘‘If Christ is the end of the Law and the 
prophets, but is a [mere] God-inspired Man, would it not be permitted us to say 
that the end of the prophetic preachings has brought THE CRIME OF WORSHIP- 
PING A MAN UPON US? 


“ Moreover the Law was indeed proclaiming, Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy 
God, and Him only shalt thou serve [Matt. iv., 10]. By which teaching it led 


96 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


even though some may evilly allege a Union of [Two] Persons (186). 


us unto Christ as to a knowledge more excellent than they had who were in the 
shadow. Shall we therefore spurning the worship of God [alone], worship a 
Man who has God indwelling Him [by the zz/flwences merely of His Spirit]? 
For where were it more preferable that God should be understood to be? in 
heaven, or in a man? in the Seraphim, or in an earthly body.”’ 


In another passage in his Christ zs One, St. Cyril shows that the Orthodox 
dotrine that in Christ we worship God the Word and not a mere human Nesto- 
rian Christ, results as follows: 


‘For I hold that so thinking and so believing we shall rid heaven and earth 
from the accusation of worshipping a Man. For it is written, Zhou shalt bow 
to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’’ 


See the Greek on page 413 of Vol. VII., Part I., of St. Cyril’s Works by P. 
E. Pusey. See the English of the context on page 310 of his translation of .5. 
Cyril on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. 


Indeed the whole drift of Cyril in his entire works on the Nestorian contro- 
versy is to show that all Scripture is against the Nestorian worship of Christ’s 
humanity, and, of course, a fortiori, against all worship of any lesser creature 
than it. 

(A A.) As Nestorius made Christ to be a mere Man, and as he admitted 
that to worship a creature for 7/s own saké is wrong, he therefore worshipped 
Christ’s humanity, as is shown by St. Cyril above, velatively to God the Word. 
Relative Worship is utter and plain paganism, its most common argument for 
the defence of its image worship and its worship of relics, altars, etc. Alas! 
some of those forms of Nestorian idolatry or creature-service exist among a few 
ill-read and heretical Anglicans, who, alas! are not deposed for it, but suffered to 
remain in that Communion to corrupt and ruin simple souls. What can their 
unfaithful Bishops look for but eternal damnation? How unlike Athanasius 
and Cyril is their traitorism to their bounden and vowed duty! As to the rela- 
tive indwelling mentioned in (S) above, page 89, I would add that: 


St. Cyril teaches that the Trinity dwells in us relatively by the Spirit (Oa- 
ford translation of Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, 
page 282). Compare pages 79, 160,215. Cyril denounces the Nestorian relative 
worship of Christ’s humanity in id., pages 255, 258, 259, 260, 74, 79, 276, and 
305 to 310. 

Any one who desires proof that Nestorius denies the real indwelling of God 
the Word’s Substance in the Man born of Mary, and makes Him to indwell him 
relatively only, that is by the influences, not the Eternal Substance of His Holy 
Spirit, can find it on pages 39, 155, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 255 of P. E. 
Pusey’s translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the [Incarnation Against Nes- 
forius. See also in the /udex of Greek Words in Pusey’s translation under 
σχέσει and σχετικῆν, for example, pages 14, 35, 41, 67, I05, and 305; and under 
proper words in the indexes to St. Cyril. Pusey should in all those places have 
rendered σχέσις by relation, σχετικῆ by relative, and σγετικῶς by relatively. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 97 


For the Scripture hath said, not that the Word united a man’s per- 


Nestorius makes Christ a mere inspired Man, pages 128 and 140 (see the 
Greek); 153, 157 (Greek). 

(BB.) We shall find Cyril further on in the above Epistle, and in his long 
Epistle which has the XII. Chapters, condemning the worship of Christ’s 
humanity ¢ogether with (σύν) His Divinity, and teaching us to worship God the 
Word with (μετὰ) His humanity, that is as within His humanity, but not to wor- 
ship His humanity together with the Word, as the Nestorians did. 


These are vastly important documents because they have been approved by 
the Third Ecumenical Council and the Three after it. 


(CC.) Besides we shall find the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema 
IX., cursing those who bow to both Natures of Christ and limiting worship of 
Him to His Divinity μετά, that is wzth or within His flesh. Similarly they speak 
in another part of their Definition. And the Ecumenical Synods from the 
Third to the Sixth inclusive followed Cyril on such themes; for he was the 
greatest teacher, under God, on them. As Cyril of Alexandria again and again 
in all his writings on our topic teaches that we must worship God the Word 
“‘with”’ His flesh (μετὰ σαρκός), but forbids to worship His flesh “‘logether with” 
(σύν) His Divinity, we hence find the Orientals who sympathized with Nestorius 
objecting by their spokesman, Andrew of Samosata, to his condemnation in his 
Anathema VIII. of their Man-Worship, and saying in reply: 


‘We do not assert the expresssion ‘co-bow’ and ‘co-glorify’ (τὸ συμπροσκυν- 
εἶσϑαι καὶ συνδοξάζεσϑαι) as of two Persons or Hypostases or Sons, as though one 
[sort of ] bowing [that is, ‘‘ove sort of worship’’] were to be done in one way 
to His flesh, and another [sort of ] bowing [that is, of ‘‘worshzp’’] in another way 
to God the Word; but, on the contrary, we offer but one [sort of ] bowing [that 
is, of ‘‘ worship’’| and the rest of the acts of worship as to One Son, and we use 
the expression ‘‘Zogether with” (civ) * * δ 


Then, after quoting Cyrilin a wrong sense as though he contradi@ted him- 
self, his opponent adds ; 


‘In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearnedly and very 
unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the one and the same Son to- 
gether with his flesh ἐπέσκηψε τοῖς σὺν τῇ σαρκὶ προσκυνεῖν τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ Tio βου- 
λομένοις), as though the [preposition] μετά [wzth] were some thing other than 
the [preposition] civ [together with]; which very assertion he himself has made, 
as has been said before, by his saying that He [God the Word] must be bowed to 
with flesh and by forbidding His flesh to be co-bowed to with His Divinity (Aey- 
ὧν αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρκὸς δεῖν προσκυνεῖσϑαι, ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσκυνεῖσϑαι TH Θεότητι THY 
oapxa.),”’ The Greek of Pusey’s text has what means “ sczentifically’’ instead of 
‘‘unlearnedly and unskilfully’’ which is the reading of the old fifth century 
Latin translation, which some will think the context proves to be the only right 
sense here. Yet commonly or often in Greek σύν with the dative means the 
same as μετά with the genitive. But it is clear that Cyril in the above passage, 
and commonly, uses them in different senses, and that he rejects the σύν with 


98 Act I. of Ephesus. 


son to Himself, but that He ‘‘ was made flesh’ (187). But ‘‘ The 


the dative as favoring the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity, and approves 
the use of μετά with the genitive in the sense of worshipping not the humanity 
of Christ Zogether with the Word, but God the Word wh it, in the sense of 
within it as in a temple, as his teacher Athanasius sets forth in a passage below. 


In some quotations below on worship to Christ’s humanity we shall find a 
prominent Nestorian understanding Cyril of Alexandria to teach that Christ’s 
humanity is not worshipable at all, and opposing him for so teaching. 


Before dismissing the matter of Cyril’s testimony as to the worship of 
Christ’s humanity, I should add that he always professed to follow St. Athana- 
sius as his teacher. 

It will be apposite here then to quote on the worship of Christ’s humanity 
Athanasius’ Epistle to Adelphius, which we may be well assured Cyril followed. 
St. Athanasius wrote it against a new sect of Arian heretics who denied the In- 
carnation and so would not worship their created God the Word as within his 


humanity but outside of it, and who charged the Orthodox with worshipping it 
with the Word. 


Athanasius replies in Section 3 and after of that document as follows: 


‘“WE DO NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE. GOD FORBID! FOR SUCH AN ERROR 
as that belongs to THE HEATHEN AND TO THE ARIANS. BU? WE BOW TO THE 
LORD OF THE CREATION WHO HAS PUT ON FLESH, THAT IS TO THE WORD of 
God. [00 κτίσμα προσκυνοῦμεν" μὴ γένοιτο. ᾿Εϑνικῶν yap καὶ ᾿Αρειανῶν ἡ τοιαύτη πλάνη: 
ἀλλὰ τὸν Κύριον τῆς κτίσεως σαρκωθέντα τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον προσκυνοῦμεν, Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca, tome 26, col. 1073, Athanasius’ Epistle to Bishop Adelphius}. 
And even that flesh in itself is a part of the creatures [that is, is one created 
thing among other created things, and so is not to be worshipped], though it 
has been made a body of God. And [so] we neither separate that body [from 
the Word] and put it by itself axd bow to it on account of the Word; nor [on 
the other hand] do we when we wish to bow to the Word remove Him from His 
flesh ; but knowing, as we have said before, the expression, “714 Word was 
made flesh’ [John i., 14], we acknowledge that same Word, even while He is in 
flesh, to be God. For who is so senseless as to say to the Lord, Depart from the 
body in order that I may bow to thee? Or who is so impious as, on account of 
His body, to say with the senseless Jews, to Him [that is to God the Word], Why 
dost thou, being a Man, make thyself God [ John x., 33]? 


‘“‘But not such was the case with the leper. For he was bowing to the God 
who was in a body, and kept acknowledging that He was God by saying, ‘Lord, 
if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean’ [Matt. viii., 2; Mark i., 40; Luke v., 12; 
προσεκύνει yap τὸν Θεὸν ἐν σώματι ὅντα, καὶ ἐγίνωσκεν ὅτε Θεὸς ἦν, λέγων, Κύριε, etc.] 
And he neither deemed the Word of God a creature because of the flesh [which 
He had put on]; nor, because the Word is the Maker of all the creation was he 
despising the flesh with which He [that is the Word] was clothed; but he was 
bowing to the Creator of the Universe as in a created temple, and he was made 
clean.’’ [Then after citing other texts to prove that God the Word was ina human 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 99 


Word was made flesh’’ (188) means nothing other than that, like us, 


body and operated in it, Athanasius adds]: ‘‘And these things occurred, and 
no one doubted, as the Arians dare to do now, whether the Word Who has put. 
on flesh is to be believed in and obeyed, but even when they saw the Man, 
they recognized Him [that is God the Word] as being their Maker; and 
when they heard His human voice, they were not on that account saying 
that the Word is a creature; but on the contrary they were even trembling 
and were knowing nothing less than that He [God the Word] was uttering 
His voice out of a holy temple [that is out of the temple of his body. Compare 
John ii., 19, 21]. Why therefore do not the impious men fear, forasmuch as 
they have not liked to retain God in their knowledge, that they may be delivered 
over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not becoming [Rom. i., 
28]. FoR THE CREATURE DOES NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE, NOR on the 
other hand, WAS THE CREATURE DECLINING TO WORSHIP ITS LORD because 
of the flesh [which He wore], but it saw its own Maker in the body; and zm the 
name [or “αὐ the name’’] of Jesus Anointed every knee was bending, and will 
bend of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and 
every tongue shall confess; though it may not seem well to the Arians, that Jesus 
Anointed is Lord to the glory of God the Father [Philip ii., το, 11]. For His 
flesh did not bring dishonor on the Word. God forbid! but on the contrary it 
has received honor from Him [that is from God the Word]; nor because the Son 
who existed iz the form of God took upon Him the form of a servant [Philip i1., 
71, did He [the Word] therefore suffer any loss of His Divinity, but on the con- 
trary He Himself [God the Word] became the Liberator of all flesh and of every 
creature.”’ 


Then after showing that the heretics against whom he is writing denied the 
Incarnation of God the Word, Athanasius shows that they must also deny the 
salvation brought by His Inman, and adds: 


‘“Do not those therefore who despise that flesh which was taken on by the 
Word for the purpose of liberating all men, and of raising all from the dead, and 
of redeeming them from sin, or those who because of that flesh bring an accu- 
sation against the Son of God of being a thing made or a creature, seem to be 
destitute of gratitude? For they all but cry out to God saying, Yo not send in 
flesh thy Sole Born Son. Do not let him take flesh out of a Virgin lest He re- 
deem us from death and sin. * * * These expressions of theirs are uttered 
with devilish audacity, through which audacity they contrive evil for themselves. 
For those who are not willing to bow to the Word made flesh are ungrateful ; 
and those who separate the Word from the flesh do not hold that one redemp- 
tion has been made for sin, nor that one freeing from deatl has been accom- 
plished. 


But where at all will the impious men find any reason for daring to say, 
also in vegard to the flesh itself which the Saviour took, WE DO NOT BOW To THE 
LORD WITHIN THE FLESH, BUT WE SEPARATE THE BODY AND SERVE HIM [God 
the Word] ALONE [Ποῦ δὲ ὄλως οἱ ace Bere καὶ kad? ἑαυτὴν εὑρήσουσι THY σάρκα, ἣν ἔλαβεν 


100 Act I. of Ephesus. 


He took part of flesh and blood (189), and made a body like ours, 


ὁ Σωτὴρ, wa καὶ τολμῶσι λέγειν. Ov προσκυνοῦμεν ἡμεῖς τὸν Κύριον μετὰ τῆς σαρκός" ἀλλὰ 
διαιροῦμεν τὸ σῶμα, καὶ. μόνῳ τούτῳ λατρεύομεν).Ἡ * * * And finally since the 
flesh is indivisible from the Word, why is it not a necessity that they lay 
aside the error [of asserting that it is] and then worship the Father in the name 
of our Lord Jesus Anointed; or if they will not bow to nor serve the Word who 
is in flesh, that they be cast out from every side, and no longer be numbered 
with Christians, but either with pagans or with the Jews.”’ 


Then after condemning their heretical renunciation of the doctrine of the 
Inflesh of the Word as a renunciation of Christianity, he comes to rebuke them 
again for making out Christians to be worshippers of a Man, for he writes: 


“πώ let them know that though we bow to the Lord in flesh, nevertheless 
WE DO NOT BOW TO A CREATED THING, BUT TO THE CREATOR WHO PUT ON 
THE CREATED BODY, AS WE HAVE SAID BEFORE. 


‘‘Seétion 7. And we were wishing that thy Piety had asked them this [ques- 
tion, namely], When Israel were commanded to go up to Jerusalem to worship 
in the temple of the Lord, where was the ark, and above it the Cherubim of 
glory overshadowing the mercy seat, were they doing well or or to the contrary ? 
If they were doing wrongly why were the neglecters of that law [to go up to 
Jerusalem to worship in the temple] subjected to punishment? For it is written, 

Whosoever despiseth [that law] and goeth not up shall be utterly destroyed from 
among the people | Deut. xvi., 16]. But if they were doing well [in going up to 
Jerusalem to worship in the temple], and were in that thing well pleasing to 
God, why do not the foul Arians, the most abominable even of all heretics, de- 
serve to have been destroyed many times, because while they approve the former 
people [of God] for the honor [manifested by them] for the temple, ¢hey are 
nevertheless unwilling to bow to the Lord [who 15] in flesh as in a temple. And 
yet the old temple was constructed of [mere] stones and gold, as a shadow [Heb. 
viii., 5 and x., 1]; but since the Truth [John xiv., 6] has come, the type [Heb. 
viii., 5] as a consequence [of that coming] has ceased, and in accordance with 
the Lord’s utterance, zot ove stone in it has remained on a stone, which has not 
been thrown down [Matt. xxiv., 2]. And when they saw the temple of stones 
they neither thought that the Lord who spoke in that temple was a creature, 
nor [on the other hand] did they despise the temple and go away afar off and 
worship; but entered into it and worshipped, according to the Law, the God who 
gave oracles from the temple And since that was so done, why is not the body 
of the Lord truly all-holy and all-sacred, forasmuch as the glad tidings in regard 
to it were proclaimed by the archangel Gabriel, and forasmuch as it was formed 
by the Holy Spirit [Luke i., 26, 34, 35], and was made a garment of the Word; 
[though] IT IS NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED [ov προσκυνητόν] ὃ" 

I have followed here the reading of the manuscripts, which, as we learn 
from a note in Migne’s edition here, is not, on one or two all-important points, 
that of the editors. I hope to publish a version of this Epistle to Adelphius, 
now done, which gives the Greek readings of this place. It has, I think, like 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 161 


His own (190), and came forth a man out of a woman, not having 


so many other passages which did not please Monophysite or other creature- 
serving copyists or editors, been lacerated by them in different ways. 


I would only add that the internal evidence makes for the lection that 
Christ’s human body ‘‘zs not to be worshipped,’ because as above in Section 3, 
of this document, Athanasius says, ‘‘We do not worship a creature. God forbid! 
[οὐ κτίσμα προσκυνοῦμεν. Μὴ γένοιτο]. For such an error belongs to the pagans 
and lhe Arians; but we worship the Lord of the creation [that is] the Word of 
God who has put on flesh.’ See the passage in full above. Indeed the whole 
drift of the above Epistle is against every form of creature-worship, without any 
exception. And therefore to make Athanasius deny worship to the Arian God 
the Word, as he really does, because He was a creature; and nevertheless to 
teach the Arians, whom he is addressing, to worship a lesser creature, on their 
hypothesis, that is His mere created humanity, would bea self-evident absurdity 
on its very face, and one which would have brought a crushing retort from them 
for its manifest inconsistency. 


In this Letter, below, St. Athanasius adds: 


‘““Wherefore let them not lie against the Scriptures of God, nor cause the 
simple ones among the brethren to stumble; but, if indeed they are willing, let 
them even change their minds, and No LONGER SERVE THE CREATURE CON- 
TRARY TO THE GOD WHO CREATED ALL THINGS. But if they wish to persist in 
THEIR IMPIETIES, let them alone be filled with those impieties and let them 
gnash their teeth like their father the Devil, because the faith of the Universal 
Church acknowledges the Word of God [to be the] Creator and Maker of all 
things, and we know that ‘/z the beginning indeed was the Word, and the Word 
was with God [John i., 1]; and wE Bow To HIM Who has also become man 
Jor our salvation, not as to an Equal in an equal (now that He is] iz the body 
[that is, Athanasius does not assert that the Word’s body is equal to his Divinity], 
but as toa Master who took on Him the form of the servant and was the Maker 
and Creator in a Creature, in order that in it [that is, in the creature, that is, in 
the humanity put on by THE WorRD], having liberated all things, He might lead 
the world to the Father, and might bring all things to peace, those in the heav- 
ens and those on the earth [Coloss. 1., 20]. For we thus acknowledge His 
Paternal (or ‘‘His Father's’? Divinity [that is, in Him, the Word of the Father], 
and we bow to Fits [that is the Word’s] Presence in flesh [or “ to His,” that is, 
the Word’s “incarnate Presence’’] even though the Arian maniacs split them- 
selves.’’ 


If at this point some one object to us that however much St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria may oppose the Nestorian relative worship of Christ’s humanity, he is 
inconsistent, for his X. Looks Against Julian the Apostate show that he him- 
self was guilty of the sin of relatively worshipping mere things much lower 
than Christ’s perfect humanity, I reply that as I show in a special Dissertation 
on that work which I hope to publish if means be given me, it is not his at all, 
but what is left of the tedious and voluminous work of Philip of Sida, of which 


102 Act I. of Ephesus. 


cast away his being as God, and His [former] birth out of God the 


Photius of the ninth century speaks in so condemnatory a tone in his Bzblio- 
theca. Inasmuch as Philip was but little known, and St. Cyril was, and was 
famous, some unscrupulous dealer in manuscripts, in order to enhance its mone- 
tary value, and so to line his own pockets with money, probably erased Philip's 
name and put St. Cyril’s in its place. That, alas! was done so often in the case 
of hundreds of writings which were in a similar manner falsely fathered on dif- 
ferent Orthodox men, that men often quote to this very hour such spurious pro- 
ductions as really theirs. The Benedictine editors and some others have done 
somewhat to separate the wheat from the chaff by putting some works attributed 
to a Father in the class of Genuine writings, others in the class of Doubtful, 
and others in the class of Spurious, but many productions are still classed as 
Genuine, which are really Spurious. Oh! for a good, critical edition of Cyril, 
and of Athanasius, and of every other old Christian writer! During the middle 
ages and even in our own day thousands and millions have died in deplorable 
and soul-damning idolatry or other sins because they relied upon some bastard 
work or works or quotations as genuine. Indeed, the systems of theology put 
forth by the Schoolmen which governed the minds of hundreds of millions 
were admixtures of spurious passages with those which were genuine. And the 
spurious so modified the genuine that often the force of the truth was blurred 
and weakened, and the force of the lie was made all powerful. 


Another remark should be here made, and that is that Cyril was perfectly 
sound on the Το Natures to which he refers above as still existing, and there- 
fore to charge him with Monophysitism is outrageously unjust. Indeed, he 
wrote against the Syzuszasts, that is, Co-Substancers, who were the precursors of 
the Monophysites. Indeed they were Monophysites, that is, One Natureites. 
And he received the expression 7zwo Natures used by John of Antioch and em- 
bodied it in his Epistle to him which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical 
Council. And in other documents Cyril accepted the expression. See /. HZ. 
Newman's Traéts Theological and Ecclesiastical, pages 311, 322. On page 211 
he writes : 

‘‘Nor must it be forgotten that Cyril himself accepted the Two φύσεις [that 
is, the Two Natures. Chrystal]; vid. some instances at the end of Theod. 
Eran. ii. Vid. also C. Nest. tii., p. 70, d. e., and his Answers to the Orientals 
and Theodoret.’’ 


One thing more: What did St. Cyril of Alexandria mean by his profession 
of worshipping God the Word, ‘‘zzthin [or ‘with’] His flesh,”’ (μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς 
αὐτοῦ) Did he mean that he worshipped the flesh /ogether with the Word, 
thus worshipping both Natures at the same time; or did he mean that he wor- 
shipped God the Word with His own body, in the sense of worshipping God the 
Word within it as inatemple as Athanasius as above does in his pzstle to 
Adelphius ? See pages 98, 99, 100 

In answer to those questions I would state that my limits in a note are too 
confined to permit the full discussion of the dogmas involved. I must therefore 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 103 


Father, but He has remained,even since His taking of flesh, exactly 


confine myself to the mere matter of the “zstorical fact. I reply then that there 
are two views which I will here give, as I and 2: 


I. One holding the /7rs¢ view would say as follows: 


From all that I have seen of his genuine writings I judge that in Christ St. 
Cyril worshipped God the Word alone; and that his position against the oppo- 
site heresies of the Co-Substancers and the Nestorians was as follows: 


(1.) He held to the worship of God the Word alone in Christ; and refused 
to worship His humanity or any part thereof, either relatively or absolutely, on 
the ground that it is Man-Worship, that is, the Worship of a Man (ἀνϑρωπολατ- 
peia, to use his own word for it) that is, Creature-Worship, that is, the Worship 
of a Creature, contrary as he so often affirms to his favorite three texts: 


(A.) The Septuagint Greek Version of Psalm 1xxx., 9, the common Ver- 
sion of the Old Testament in use among the Greeks of his day and now; it 
reads : 


“There shall be no new god in thee; neither shalt thou worship (προσκυνήσεις) 
a strange god.”’ 


(B.) Isaiah xlii., 8. ‘Zam the Lord God: that is my name: my glory will 
I not give to another, neither my praises to graven images.” 


And (C.) Christ’s own unalterable law in Matt. iv., 10, ‘‘7ouw shalt bow to 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” 


He opposes in the strongest terms in the quotations from him above and in 
the references to him there the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity as Man- 
Worship, as a crime, and as a return to creature-worship, that is, to paganism. 
He nowhere in any of his genuine writings professes to worship His humanity; 
and his whole drift is to denounce so doing by the Co-Substancers and by the 
Nestorians as an error and a most perilous sin. And, as we shall see, they rep- 
resented the only two possible ways in which Christ’s humanity can be wor- 
shipped, that is, absolutely as transubstantiated into God as the Co-substancers 
held; or relatively to God the Word, as the Nestorians held. 


Let us examine those two heresies as to the way in which they worshipped 
Christ’s humanity: 


(2.) We begin with the Apollinarians who developed their heresy in the 
last half of the fourth century. On certain details in regard to them there has 
been some doubt, and some different statements. Blunt in his Dz?zonary of 
Seés has an article on them which contains some truth and some thing inexact. 


John Henry Newman has an essay on ‘* Zhe Heresy of Apollinarts, from 
Notes dated August 22, 1835,” and therefore years before he left the English 
Church for Rome. It isin his Assays, Theological and Ecclesiastical, page 255 
and after. The Notes are brief but valuable, because of the citations of old 
writers in them. I will make some use of them here. To begin: 


104 Act I. of Ephesus. 


enn EErTDEaE nnn aEaTEnESRIRIDESomascsaee ENGEL 


what He was before (191). ‘This, the doctrine of the exact faith, 


The Apollinarian heretics were divided into two parties, the Valentinians, 
the more moderate sect; and the Timotheans, the more radical. Newman, on 
page 277, of his Zvacts Theological and Ecclesiastical, says of them: 

“(4.) Both parties taught that our Lord’s body was originally consubstan- 
tial with ours, and that it was made divine. But it was debated between them» 
whether by being made divine, it was changed merely in properties, or was 
changed into the divine substance. 

“Valentinus says: ‘He [the Son] zs consubstantial with us as regards His 
flesh. The union honored the [human] xature; tt did not make the body con- 
substantial with God’ [Leontius], page 703, C. (Nobis consubstantialis est 
secundum carnem; unio honoravit naturam, non fecit corpus consubstantiale 
Deo). 

“Timothy says: ‘Zhe Nature of the Son was consubstantial with us as re- 
gards flesh indeed, but by the union it ts divine |Leontius], page 704, B,’ [Natura 
quidem consubstantialem nobis esse carnem, unione vero esse divinam. 

‘“(5.) Valentinus, of the moderate party, maintained that its properties 
alone were affected by the presence of the Divine Word, not its substance. 

‘He writes his Apologia ‘Against Those who say that we say that the body ts 
consubstantial with God,’ Leontius, page 701, B. [Contra eos qui dicunt dicere 
nos esse corpus consubstantiale Deo.]. ‘Zhe flesh ts worshipped together with 
the Word of God,’ page 702, C. D., [Cum Verbo Dei simul adoratur caro]. “By 
the Union He is held to be God, not by nature,’ ibid., [Unione Deus habetur, 
non natura]. ‘/¢ [that is, flesh] continues to exist in the Union,’ ibid., [In 
unione esse perseverat]. His formula was ‘Union 1s not Consubstantiality,’ 
page 703, A. [Unionon est homousion].’’ 

The Apollinarians, therefore, of the moderate or Valentinian School, wor- 
shipped Christ’s flesh ve/atively. For Valentinus himself in his Apology writes 
on Christ’s flesh what proves him to have been a Man-Worshipper, that is, a 
creature-worshipper of that kind, namely: . 

“The flesh is adored together with the Word of God.” See Sections 4 and 
5 of J. H. Newman’s 7γαξὶς Theological and Ecclesiastical, page 277, as above. 

Newman, on page 278 of his work, adds, (Section 8): ‘‘ Now to turn to those, 
as Timotheus, who adopted the extreme views to which the [Apollinarian] heresy 
led. They maintained [that] our Lord’s body became, on its union, consub- 
stantial with the divine nature; else it was idolatry to worship Him as incarnate. 
Hence they were called συνουσιαςταί᾽" [that is, Co-Substancers, that is, they were 
Monophysites, that is, One-Naturettes]. 

Newman there makes the following quotations regarding them: 

Leontius, page 703, E, page 704, and page 707, A, describes them as hold- 
ing that: 

“The body of a Man which was born out of Mary ts of the same substance 
as the Divinity of the Word (ὁμοούσιον τὸ ἐκ Μαρίας σῶμα τῇ τοῦ Λόγου Θεότητι." 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 105 


everywhere sets forth and maintains. So we shall find the holy 


Newman next quotes St. Athanasius to Epictetus, 2, as describing them as 
believing in ‘flesh which was before the world and consubstantial”’ [with God the 
Word] [σάρκα προαιώνιόν τινα καὶ συνουσιωμένην]. So he quotes Nazianzus, Theo- 
doret, and Facundus as testifying. See Newman there. Newman adds: 


‘That our Lord was not in his human Nature consubstantial with us, was 
one of the two points of Eutychianism, though he wavered about it. Vid. Con- 
cilia. [Whose? Newman does not say], tlome] 2, p[age] 164, 5. He quotes 
in proof Flavian, as in Leo’s Epistles 26 and 30. 


In Section 11 of the same Essay, pages 279, 280, Newman quotes certain 
passages from old writers which show that Apollinaris at last came to deny that 
Christ’s body was originally human, and to assert that it was not taken out of 
the substance of the Virgin, and so was not of Adam’s race, but passed through 
her as water passes in a brook or channel. These facts show how different men 
in the fourth century and the fifth wrestled with the question of the right or 
wrong of worshipping Christ’s humanity. Of course if it was a part of the sub- 
stance of God the Word it was no creature, and so, by the verdict of all, could be 
worshipped absolutely, that is, as God. 


Newman, id., page 280, quotes Athanasius on the Apollinarians, Book 2, 
Section 12, as describing Apollinaris or an Apollinarian as asserting that “Zhe 
Word remodeled flesh out of Himself” [ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ μεταποίησας σάρκα ὁ Λόγος]; and 
so Athanasius in his Epistle to Epictetus, 2, represents an Apollinarian as assert- 
ing that Christ’s flesk was taken “‘xot from Mary, but out of His own Sub- 
stance’? [οὐκ ἐξ Μαρίας. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίας]. Gregory of Nazianzus represents 
an Apollinarian as asserting that: 


“That flesh-like nature was in the Son from the beginning’ [ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐν τῷ 
Υἱῷ τὴν σρκώδη ἐκείνην φύσιν εἰναι]. 

Valentinus, the Gnostic, of the second century, asserted that, ‘‘7he Word 
was made flesh out of Himself’’? [Verbum ex se caro factum est, Tertullian ox 
Christ’s Flesh, 19-21). 

Eutyches said, ‘‘ He remodeled Himself’ [Seipsum replasmavit, Vigilius of 
Thapsus Contr, Eut.] 

Hence Athanasius writes in his work Against the Apollinarians, 1, 2, that 
“They said that the flesh of Christ ἐς uncreated and heavenly’? [ἄκτιστον kai ἐπου- 
paviov λέγοντες τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σάρκα]. 

In Section 7 of the same book Athanasius represents them as saying that, 
“The body {of Christ] came out of heaven”? [ἐξ οὐρανοὺ τὸ σῶμα]. 


Another writer speaks of them as maintaining that ‘ Christ 1s not earthly, 
but heavenly’? [Χριστὸς οὐ χοϊκὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπουράνιος, Incert. Dial. V. 4]. 


Leontius writes to them, ‘‘ W7zs flesh is neither from heaven, nor eternal, as 
you assert,’’ [Neque caro e coelo nec aeterna, ut vos dicitis [Leont. p. 703. Vd. 
Naz., Ep. 202, p. 168: Nyssen, Antirrh, 13: Epiph. Haer. 77, 2]. 


106 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Fathers thought. So they became bold to say that the holy Virgin 


These quotations I take from Newman there. They show how widely the 
heretics differed from each other and from the Orthodox in their vagaries as to 
Christ’s humanity, which, of course, would affect their worship of it, and make 
it absolute or relative, according as they regarded it as God’s actual substance, or 
human, or something different from either. 


(3). We come now to the Nestorian heresy. Its worship of Christ’s hu- 
manity was relative. This is abundantly clear from Nestorius’ own words in 
this note on page 85 above, under ‘‘ O,’’ which St. Cyril there so strongly con- 
demns; and which were read in this Act I. of the Third Council, and made one 
ground for Nestorius’ condemnation and deposition by it. 


II. We come now tothe Second view as to what Cyril’s opinions were as 
to worshipping Christ’s humanity. 

One who holds this view would say: 

I hold that μετὰ τῆς σαρκός, means together with the flesh, and therefore I 
understand Cyril to worship one creature, at least, that is, the created humanity 
of Christ, fogether with God the Word with but ove worship (uid προσκυνήσει), 
that is, with but one sort cf worship, and that divine and absolute; that is, I 
worship hoth Natures with the worship due to God alone. A representative of 
another class of worshippers of Christ’s humanity would say, I worship both 
Natures; the Divinity of the Word with abso/u/e worship, because it is God; and 
the Humanity relatively to God the Word. 


The difference as to worshipping Christ’s humanity would, of course, pow- 
erfully affect men’s views as to worshipping Christ’s humanity in the Euchar- 
ist, where they hold that it is really present on the holy table together with the 
actual Substance of the Divinity of God the Word. 


Those who hold that the humanity is not worshipable at all anywhere would, 
of course, refuse to worship it there and would brand the act as one of Man- 
Service, that is, of creature-service; that is, of paganism forbidden in Matt. iv., 
to; Isaiah xlii., 8, etc., and anathematized by the Third Council of the whole 
Church in Anathema VIII. of St. Cyril approved by it, and in Anathema IX. 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 


Whereas those who hold that Christ’s humanity is worshipable either abso- 
lutely or relatively, and that it is present on the Lord’s table with the Divine 
Substance of the Word, would worship both Natures there. This class em- 
braces all or at least the bulk of all who hold to the heresies of transubstantia- 
tion and consubstantiation; that is, the unreformed Greeks, Latins, etc.; though 
the Greeks and Latins differ from each other by mutually destructive theories 
as to when and how and by what words the transubstantiation takes place; the 
Latins holding that it is effected by the Words of Institution, 7hzs 15 my body; 
and the Greeks utterly denying it, and holding that it is effected by the prayer 
for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the elements. 

Of course those who deny any actual presence of the body of Christ in the 
Eucharist on the holy table would not worship it there. 


᾿ Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 107 


was Bringer Forth of God (192). Not that the Nature of the Word, 


Cyril’s teaching on the Thanksgiving, that is, the Eucharist, as we shall see 
when we come to treat of that subject and to quote him is plain and distinct to 
this effect, namely, that God the Word’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table in 
the Rite and is not eaten there; consequently, according to his teaching, there is 
nothing to worship there either absolutely or relatively; for all admit that he 
teaches that Christ’s Humanity can not be worshipped separate from His Divinity. 
What he teaches as to any presence of His Humanity there will be treated of in 
its proper place, and his own language will be quoted. 


Even Nestorius’ language shows that he did not believe in the manducation 
of Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist, though he held to a theory of eating 
‘Christ's flesh which St. Cyril in Section 5, Book IV., of his -zve Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius (pages 141, 142, of P. E. Pusey’s transla- 
tion of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius), brands 
as ἀνθρωποφαγία; that is, eating a man, that is, cannibalism. The Greek of the 
place is found on page 194 of Vol. VI. of P. H. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of 
St. Cyril’s Works. 


What Nestorius held as to worshipping the Eucharist I know not, for I have 
not seen any clear statement from him on that point; but we do know that his 
chief champion, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, held to the relative worship of the 
symbols there as we see by his Dialogue 2, Inconfusus, page 125, edit. Sch., 
where he writes, as follows [see Rev. G. S. Faber’s Difficulties of Romanism, 
page 273 of the Third Edition, London, 1853, where the Greek is found]: 


“For the mystic Symbols do not pass out of their own nature after their con- 
secration. For they remain in their former substance and shape and appear- 
ance, and they are visible and touchable, such as they were before. Put they are 
thought of as what they have become. And they are believed on and are wor- 
shipped [xpooxvve.ta, literally ‘‘ bowed to’’] as being those things which they are 
believed to be.’? 


Faber, though one of the ablest, and, in nearly every thing, most loyal and 
most Orthodox Anglicans of his time, seems from his remarks there not to have 
perceived the utterly pagan character of the passage which he there quotes, nor 
to have realized the Nestorianism of it and of its perverse author. 


And, alas! what is vastly worse, the heresiarchs Keble and Pusey, contrary 
to the thoroughly Cyrillian and Orthodox and Catholic rubric at the end of their 
own Eucharistic Office, started in that Communion that Nestorian heresy which 
was condemned by St. Cyril and by the Third Ecumenical Council. They are 
anathematized with their heresy in the Ecumenical utterances quoted below. 


On page 79, at the commencement of this note, after first treating of St. 
‘Cyril's words in the above Epistle, ‘‘ Not that we bow to a Man fogether with 
the Word, lest that thing be secretly brought in for a phantasm,’’etc., and giving 
some of his utterances anent that expression, and on the Nestorian worship of 
‘Christ’s humanity, I promised: 


108 Act I. ef Ephesus. 


that is His Divinity, took the beginning of Its existence out of the 


II. 70 inguire how far the Third Synod of the whole Church and the 
Three after it have followed that statement and doétrine of Cyril, as to the wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity, and to state what the doétrine of the Six World Coun- 
cils on that point ts. 

I come now to redeem my promise. 


At the beginning I would say that we find Cyril in the above Epistle, and in 
his long Epistle, which has the XII. Chapters, condemning the worship of 
Christ’s humanity, together with (σύν) His Divinity, and teaching us to worship 
God the Word with (μετὰ) His humanity, that is as wzthin His humanity. These 
are vastly important documents because they have been approved by the Third 
Ecumenical Council and the Three after it. Besides we shall find the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council in its Anathema IX., cursing those ‘‘zwho bow to the Christ 
in Two Natures,’’ and limit ing worship of Him to His Divinity w7thiu His flesh. 
Similarly they speak in another part of their Definition. And the Ecumenical 
Synods from the Third to the Sixth inclusive followed Cyril on such themes ; 
for he was the greatest teacher under God on them. But to go more fully into 
this matter: 


1. We have seen above on pages 103-106 that the Apollinarians were 
divided into two parties: (1.) The Valentinians, who held that the flesh of 
Christ has not been transubstiated into the Divinity of the Word, and hence 
worshipped it relatively only to God the Word, and so were the precursors of the 
Nestorians so far as that point is concerned; and, (2.) The Timotheans, or 
Polemians, who held that the flesh of God the Word has been transubstantiated 
into the Divinity of the Word, and hence worshipped it absolutely as God. On 
the Polemians see in Blunt’s Didtionary of Sects, under Polemians and Syn- 
ustastae. 


Both sects were Apollinarians, as I have said. 


Now the Second Ecumenical Council in its Canon I. mentions ‘‘ the heresy 
of the Apollinarians,’’ without making any exception, as ‘‘¢o be specially anath- 
ematized.”’ 

That condemnation smites all its parties. 


Both wings of it denied to Christ a rational mind and admitted only the 
animal soul; and so were Dimoerites, that is, Two Partites, for they admitted 
in Christ only two parts out of the three which make up an entire Man. 


And both se¢ts were, as I have just said, 1/an- Worshippers, that is, Creature- 
Worshippers, that is, pagans. 


The same Ecumenical Council in its Seventh Canon, while branding them 
as heretics, nevertheless admits their baptism as valid, (for they are never ac- 
cused of having forsaken at all the trine immersion, then universal, or the proper 
form of words in its administration), and receives them with the Chrism, that 
is, Confirmation. That means, of course, that their orders conferred after their 
excommunication would not be received. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 109 


holy Virgin, but that His holy body was produced out of her, and 


Heretics, like the Eunomians, who had altered the ancient trine immersion 
into the single, and the form of words, were to be received as unbaptized. See 
the same Canon, and Theodoret on Heretical Fables, Book IV., Chapter 3. 
Theodoret is found, Greek and English translation, in Chrystal’s History of the 
Modes of Christian Baptism, page 78. See also Bingham’'s Antiquities of the 
Christian Church, Book XI., Chapter 3, Sections 10 and 11; and id., Book XI., 
Chapter 11, Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7. 


Here then in the fourth century, before Nestorius broached his Man-Wor- 
shipping heresy, we find two different Man-Worshipping Apollinarian sects con- 
demned and anathematized by the Universal Church. 


I quote other Ecumenically approved utterances against the Nestorian Wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity. 


2. Anathema VIII. of Cyril of Alexandria, approved by the Third Coun- 
er, A. 190: 251: 

“ΤΡ any one dares to say that the Man taken on [by God the Word] ought 
to be co-worshipped with God the Word and to be co-glorified and co-called God 
[with Him] as one with another (for the expression co always added, will force 
us to think that), and does not, on the contrary, honor the Emmanuel [that is, as 
Emnianuel means, ¢he God with us| with but one worship, and send up but one 
glorifying to Him on the ground that the Word has been made flesh let him be 
anathema.’’ 

In other words, St. Cyril here means that we must worship the Z7mmanuel, 
that is, as Emmanuel means, the God with us, on the ground that He has come 
in flesh, not on the ground nor on account of his mere created humanity, which 
being a creature, he teaches, is therefore not capable of being worshipped by 
itself or for its own sake or relatively. The ‘‘onve worship”’ here meant is divine 
worship and absolute, that is to God the Word alone as in a temple as Athanasius 
as above shows, and as Christ commands in Matthew iv., Io. 


3. Nestorius’ profession of the Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity was 
read in Act I. of the Third Council, as we shall see, and made one of the grounds 
for his condemnation and deposition. It is found under O, page 85, above, and 
begins, “ For the sake of Him [God the Word] who wears I worship him [the 
Man] who is worn,’ etc., as there. See it. 


4. In Act VI. of the Third Ecumenical Synod the Creed attributed to The- 
odore of Mopsuestia which teaches the Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ's 
humanity was condemned by the whole Catholic Church. See it in this note on 
pages 68 and 69 above. 

s. The Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople, 
A. D. 553, part before its XIV. Anathemas. 

That part of the Definition after stating that the Third Ecumenical Council 
in condemning Nestorius for his errors, had by necessary implication condemned 
every one like Theodore of Mopsuestia, whether living or dead, who held the 
same errors, then proceeds: 


110 i Act I. of Ephesus. 


gifted with a rational soul (193); to which body also the Word having 


— 


‘‘FRor it was a consequence of once condemning even one person for his so 
profane vain sayings, that we should advance not only against that one, but, as 
I may say, against every heresy or calumny of theirs, which they have made 
AGAINST THE PIOUS DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH, BY WORSHIPPING TWO SONS, 
and by dividing the undivided [Person of Christ], and by introducing THE 
CRIME OF MAN-WoRSHIP into heaven and on earth. For the whole multitude 
of the spirits above, with us, adore [but] one Lord Jesus Christ.’’ Those who 
held view I on pages 103 to 106 above would explain the above as follows: 

By ‘‘ worshipping two Sons,” is meant the worship of what is forbidden in 
Anathema IX., put forth by this Council below, that is the Nestorian worship of 
Christ “i two natures ;’’ that is, the worship of his created humanity as well 
as of his uncreated Divinity, the latter being demanded, as Cyril in effect shows 
again and again, by Matt. iv., 10; whereas the former as being M/an- Worship is 
forbidden by Christ himself in that text. 

By ‘‘dividing the Undivided One” is meant the denial of the Incarnation, 
and of the true Union, that is, the indwelling of the Man born of Mary by the 
actual divine Substance of God the Word, who put on that Man in her womb, 
and was born after the flesh in him out of her. 

By ‘‘ introducing the crime of Man-Worship into heaven and on earth”’ is 
meant the introducing the worship of Christ’s Humanity, a mere creature as all 
admit, into heaven and on earth. That, of course, would be plain Man-Wor- 
ship; that is, Creature-Worship, that is, the worship of a creature contrary to 
Christ’s law in Matt. iv., το, ‘Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and HIM 
ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE.’’ The Nestorians alleged for their separate worship 
of the humanity of Christ, and for their co-worship of it with God the Word, 
such passages, for instance, as Philippians ii., 10, 11, where all are to bow ‘‘72 
the name”? (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι) of Jesus, or according to our translation “az” His 
name. For every knee is to bow, and every tongue is to confess that He ts Lord. 
While they adduced such places for the worship of His humanity, St. Cyril, on 
the contrary, made them refer to the worship of His Divinity as demanded by 
the context; for instance, in Philippians ii., 5, 6, and 7, where God the Word, 
the subject of the whole passage, including verses 9, 10 and 11, is meant as the 
one who was “77: the form of God”’ before His Inflesh, and who in that form 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” language which all may see can 
not be asserted of His mere created humanity. And Cyril adduces against such 
Nestorian Man-Worship, such texts as Matt. iv., 10, and Isaiah xlii., 8, and the 
Septuagint of Psalm 1xxx., 9, (in our Version Ixxxi., 9), which reads, ‘‘7here 
shall be no new God in thee: neither shalt thou worship a strange god.’’ We 
see in our quotations from St. Cyril above, in this note, how he condemns and 
refutes the Nestorian perversion of Philippians ii., 9, 1oand 11. Compare his 
language in note 156, pages 67, 68 and 69, and note 171, page 74, and St. Athan- 
asius as quoted in note 173, pages 75 and 76. 


6. Anathema IX. towards the end of the Definition of the Fifth Ecumen- 
ical Council, A. D. 553. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 111 


been substancely (194) united, is said to have been born according 
to the flesh (195). 


“If any one says that the Anointed One (τὸν Χριστόν), is to be worshipped 
in two Natures, by which assertion ¢wo worships are brought in, one peculiar to 
God the Word, and the other peculiar to the Man; or if any one to the doing 
away of the flesh or to the mingling of the Divinity and of the humanity, asserts 
the monstrosity of but one Nature, that is, of One Substance of the Things 
which have come together, and so worships the Anointed One [τὸν Χριστόν] ; but 
does not [on the contrary] worship with [but] one worship [that is with divine 
and absolute worship] God the Word infleshed within His own flesh, as the 
Church of God has received from the beginning, let such a man be andathema.”’ 

Those who held to view I on pages 103 to 106 above would say as follows: 
The onze worship here means what is divine; that is, what belongs to God. 
The Zo worships mean that kind, for one, and the Nestorian relative-worship 
of Christ’s Humanity for the other; for this part of this Anathema is directed 
against those heretics, In other words the Church in this Anathema forbids us 
to worship in Christ anything but God the Word infleshed within His own flesh 
asinatemple. See Athanasius as on pages 98-IoI above. For if we worship 
the Man it is not God-Worship, that is it is not the worship of God, but Man- 
Worship, that is, creature-worship; and both sorts of worship can not rationally 
be united in one act of worship, like bowing for instance, the act here specified 
by the Greek, but used, as is common, as a generic term for every act of worship. 


7. The Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema XII. anathematizes Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia for his rvelatzve-worship of Christ’s Humanity, and all who 
defend him in that error. Theodore, as we see by that Anathema, taught that 
his mere human Christ who, according to him, had progressed from what 15. 
worse to what is better is ‘‘ fo be bowed to for the sake of God the Word’s Person 
in the same way as the Emperor’s tmage ts bowed to for the sake of the Em-~ 
peror”? (καὶ κατ’ ἰσότητα βασιλικῆς εἰκόνος, εἰς πρόσωπον τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου προσκυνεῖσθαι). 

Here he lands in the reiative service argument by which the heathen strives 
to maintain the sinlessness of his image-worship. 

I quote some parts of this place which are most apposite to our theme. 

Anathema XTT. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: 

“If any one defends Theodore the Impious, of Mopsuestia, who said that God 
the Word is One, and that the Christ (τὸν Χριστόν) is another who was trouble 
by the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and that little by little 
he separated himself from the more evil things, and so was rendered better by 
progress in works and was made spotless in conduct, and as a mere Man was 
baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and 
that through the baptism [literally ‘‘ through the dipping’’] He received the 
grace of the Holy Spirit and was deemed worthy of adoption, and Is To BE 
BOWED To [προσκυνεῖσθαι, that is, “15 TO BE WORSHIPPED’ ] FOR THE SAKE OF GoD 
THE WoORD’S PERSON IN THE SAME WAY THAT AN EMPEROR’S IMAGE IS FOR 
THE SAKE OF THE EMPEROR’S PERSON, and that after his resurrection, he was 
made blameless in his thoughts and entirely sinless. * * * * * * * * 


112 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[Section III.—Cyril’s final exhortation to Nestorius beseeching him 


“ΤΡ any one therefore defends the aforesaid most impious Theodore, and his 
impious writings, in which he poured forth the above mentioned and number- 
less other blasphemies against our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and does 
not anathematize him and his impious writings, and all who accept or defend 
him or who say that he was an Orthodox expounder, and those who have written 
in his favor and in favor of his impious writings, and those who hold like senti- 
ments, or who at any time have held such sentiments and continued in such 
heresy till the last, let such a one be anathema.”’ 


One thing should be remarked here, that is, if the Universal Church in this 
utterance anathematizes those who give relative-worship to the highest of all 
mere creatures, Christ’s sinless and perfect humanity, much more does it by 
necessary implication anathematize all who give velative-worship to any lesser 
creature, be it the Virgin Mary, any archangel, angel, or saint, or martyr, or to 
any relics, or to any image, painted, or graven, or to any cross, or to any other 
symbol, or to any altar, holy table, or any thing else. In fact, by this canon 
all relative worship is anathematized, and only the other kind of worship, is al- 
lowed and approved and required, that is, the absolute, all of which is preroga- 
tive to God alone, and so may not be given to any animate creature or to any 
mere inanimate thing. 

Ill. We come now, according to the promise on page 79, to quote some Nes- 
torian writers on the Worship of Christ’s Humanity against St. Cyril and the 
Orthodox. 


But here I must be brief, for this note is already very long. I will therefore 
limit myself to quoting or referring to some passages out of many from the fol- 
lowing Nestorian writers, including under that name the founders of the Nesto- 
rian heresy who were before Nestorius, namely: 


1. Diodore of Tarsus. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
Nestorius. 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. 


vB YN 


Andrew, Bishop of Samosata; and 

6. Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana. 

I must limit myself here mainly to their opinions in favor of the Relative 
Worship of Christ’s Humanity. 

As to the Nestorian heresies on the Union, their denial of the Substance 
Union aud the Incarnation, and the doétrine of Economic Appropriation, their 
error of mere Relative Indwelling, etc., see in this note 183 above, and in notes 
152, 154 and 156, on page 61 and after; notes 157 and 158, page 69 and after; 
note 159, page 70; note 160, page 71; note 163, page 73; notes 169, 171 and 173, 
‘on page 74 and after. 

I. Wecome, then, first, to THE UTTERANCES OF DIODORE OF TARSUS on 
worshipping Christ’s Humanity. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 113 


to hold to and to teach the sound doétrines that the peace and 
unity of the Church may be preserved. The salutation]. 


St. Cyril’s witness on pages 93 and 94 above shows that he held to worship- 
ping Christ’s Humanity, and so was what St. Cyril there makes him, not a Trin- 
itarian, but a Tetradite; that is, a Fourite, that is, a Quaternarian. See there. 


St. Cyril wrote a Treatise against him, some few quotations from which 
alone remain. They are translated into English in P. E. Pusey’s .S?. Cyril of 
Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, pages 320-337. They 
should be read, as well as the quotation on Diodore in the note on page 321 from 
St. Cyril. I quote in Pusey’s translation, on page 330, Passage 20 of DIODORE: 
‘Bor while the Lord was in the bowels of the Virgin and of her essence, he had 
not the honor of Sonship; but when he was fashioned and become a temple for 
God the Word, in that he received the Only Begotten, he took the honour of the 
name and was participant with Him in the honour.”’ 


Passage 22 of Diodore, on page 332 of Pusey’s S. Cyril of Alexandria on 
the Incarnation Against Nestorius, and Cyril’s answer to it in Passage 23 I pre- 
sume to be translations from the Syriac, the Syriac translator being a Mon- 
ophysite. From that I suspect both and do not rely on them, for it is admitted 
on all hands that One-Natureites have corrupted St. Cyril’s writings, and that 
from ancient times. 

It will suffice to say then that Diodore of Tarsus denies in effect the Inflesh 
of the Word in the Virgin’s womb, and ascribes to Him a share of the honor, 
that is of the Worship of God the Word, pages 330, 331, 332-336, P. E. Pusey’s 
translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. 
See Cyril’s answer on those pages. Diodore evidently held the Man-Worship 
afterwards anathematized in Anathema IX. of the Fifth World Council. 


2. Wecome now to THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA on our theme. 

See pages 68, 69, 70, 72, and 92 of this note, where there is clear proof that 
he worshipped Christ’s humanity relatively to God the Word. 

In S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, pages 337 
363, are found extracts from lost writings of St. Cyril Against Theodore. 
Passage 9, page 340, shows that he was a Man-Worshipper; so Cyril shows again 
in a passage on page 345, and in another on page 349. I have given it on page 
92 of this note. So Cyril shows on pages 353, 354; 355; 358, 359, 360, 362. 

St. Cyril speaks of ‘‘the ungodly Nestorius” as following Theodore; 
page 361. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius’ teacher, denies the reality of the Incar- 
nation, pages 344, 345. Compare page 347. 

3. NESTORIUS comes next. The proof of his denial of the Incarnation is 
clear. The proof of his Man-Worship is abundant; but we can give only a small 
portion of it here. 

(A.) His heresies of mere Relative Indwelling and Relative Conjunction, 
and his other heresies on the Union of the Two Natures are mentioned in this 


114 Act I. of Ephesus. 


And these things now I write, from the love which is in Christ, 


note on pages, 67, 70, 71, 72, 74, 82, 83, 88, 89, 96, and the pages of P. EK. Pusey’s: 
translation of S. Cyril on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, which are men- 
tioned on page 96 of this note. 


On the closeness of the connection between the Nestorian heresies of mere 
Relative-Indwelling and Relative-Worship, see note 156, pages 61-69 above. 


Nestorius denies the birth of God the Word in flesh, that is the Incarnation; 
see in proof page 26 of P. E. Pusey’s translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on 
the Incarnation Against Nestorius. The passage is found at the end of Section 
5, of Book I., of St. Cyril’s Five-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
torius. ‘There we read that Eusebius, then a layman, but afterwards Bishop of 
Dorylaeum, was present in the Church when Nestorius was profanely babbling 
on the Incarnation; which Eusebius understood him to deny, and therefore 
cried out that: 

“The Word Himself who was before the Worlds has undergone a second 
birth also, that is that birth which was in flesh and out of a woman.”’ 


The question is, Did Nestorius admit that, and confess the birth of God the 
Word in flesh? Nota bit of it. He promptly denies it and abuses the excel- 
lent man who had uttered it, for he says to the people who had heard Eusebius: 
and sympathized with him : 


(1 rejoice on beholding your zeal; but from the very thing itself is a clear 
refutation of the foulness of what has been said by this wretched man; for 
where there are two births there are two Sons, but the Church knows [but] One 
Son, Christ the Lord.”’ 


The Definition and Canons of the Third Council, the Definition of the 
Fourth, and that of the Fifth with its XIV. Anathemas, tell us with absolute 
certainty what Nestorius’ heresies were and how the Church has condemned 
them. See them all. 


(B.) His Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity is set forth on pages 67, 
68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, and especially and fully on page 81; page 82 (contains 
Cyril’s reply); page 82 (Nestorius fails to see that by bowing to Christ’s Humanity 
he makes it a god); 82 and 83 (Cyril rebukes him for so doing, and for his doc- 
trine of a mere Conjunction instead of a real Union of the Two Natures); page 
83 especially, where Nestorius again proclaims his Relative-Worship of Christ’s 
Humanity; 83-87 (Cyril rebukes him again for his Creature-Worship, and for 
his attempted evasion, on page 86, of ‘‘ uniting the worship” of the Two Na- 
tures, that is, for worshipping the creature, the Humanity, with the Creator ; 
that is, God the Word); page 87 (Nestorius’ confession of Man-Worship again); 
pages 87 and 88 (St. Cyril’s rebuke of that error as resulting in making a ew 
god of Christ’s Humanity, and so in effect of adding that God to the Trinity 
which alone Christians worship, and making It a Tetrad, that is, a Four to be 
worshipped); page 88 (another confession of Nestorius that He was a Man-Wor- 
shipper, that is, a Creature-Worshipper; and another pagan argument for it); 88 
and 89 (St. Cyril’s refutation of that error and that argument); page 89 (Nesto- 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 115: 


exhorting thee as a brother [to us] and beseeching thee before the 


rius again confesses his error of relatively worshipping Christ’s Humanity and 
advances the error of a mere Conjunction of the Two Natures, as opposed to: 
their real Union, to support it); 89, 90 (St. Cyril brands his error again as Man- 
Worship and refutes the evasion of Nestorius); page 91 (Nestorius adds a new 
argument for his denial of the Incarnation and for his Relative-Worship of 
Christ’s Humanity); 91, 92 (St. Cyril refutes his argument and brands his wor- 
ship of Christ’s Humanity as a return to Creature-Worship and Paganism, and 
as Tetradism); 94, 95, 96 (St. Cyril’s strong texts against the Nestorian Worship 
of Christ’s Humanity); 95 (St. Cyril again rebukes Nestorius for his worship of 
the humanity of Christ); g8-ror (St. Athanasius, Cyril’s teacher, whom he pro- 
fesses to follow, proclaims that Christ’s body is not to be worshipped). 


For many utterances of St. Cyril against the Nestorian Worship of Christ’s 
Humanity, see the pages of P. E. Pusey’s translation of his works oz the [ncar- 
nation against Nestorius, which are mentioned on pages 94, 95 and 96 of this 
note. 


Nestorius makes the worship of Christ’s Humanity to be relative only, to 
God the Word, page 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261-284, 290, 292, etc.; (compare 
Cyril’s answer in those pages and the context); pages 255-320. 

St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Explanation of the XII; Chapters delivered 
at Ephesus, under Anathema V., opposes the Nestorian worship of Christ’s 
Humanity; it isin Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 76, col, 304, C.; and in P. 
E. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril’s Works, Vol. VI., page 250. 

So he does in Chapter VIIL., id., col. 308, B. C., in the same tome; and in 
P. E. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril’s Works, Vol. VI., pages 253, 254. 


(C.) His denial of the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation of the suf- 
ferings of the mere Man to God the Word to avoid worshipping a creature, that 
is, that mere Man, is seen from the notes on pages 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 of this vol-~ 
ume. Cyril, under his Anathema XII., in his Defence of his XII. Chapters 
Against the Orientals, column 384, C. D., tome 76 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, 
quotes St. Athanasius as, in effect, teaching that we must Economically ascribe: 
to God the Word the Sufferings of His Humanity to avoid worshipping a Man. 
I have quoted it on page 75 of this note. It is given in Greek in Vol. VI. of P.. 
E. Pusey’s edition of the original of Cyril’s works, page 378. 


4. ‘THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS. 


(A.) Theodoret denies the reality of the Incarnation, on pages 63 to 68 of 
this work, in the note there, and instead brings in the heresy of a mere Relative 
indwelling, makes Christ a mere inspired Man, and gives him worship with God 
the Word; for all which errors St. Cyril there rebukes him. See them especi- 
ally where the master mind of Cyril speaks. And we must well remember that 
Anathema XIII. of the Fifth Council anathematizes Theodoret’s writings 
against Ephesus and St. Cyril’s XII. Chapters, and all who do not anathematize 
those writings of Theodoret. Those things are of chief moment and importance 
and are perfectly clear in their decisions. 


116 Act I, of Ephesus. 


Anointed One (196), and his chosen (197) angels, to hold and to 


Yet I add two passages which may be useful. 

(B.) Theodoret, contrary to the dodtrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s An- 
athema VIII., which was approved by Ephesus, and to Anathema IX. of the 
Fifth Ecumenical Council, worshipped a Man with God the Word, that is, he 
worshipped both Natures in Christ, that is, the Divine in which he is approved, 
and also the human in which he is condemned in those enunciations and pro- 
nouncements and decisions of the whole Church. For in his Censure of St. 
Cyril’s Anathema V., he writes: 

“We worship as one Son Him who took [that is God the Word] and that 
which was taken,’ [that is, His Humanity]. See the Greek in P. E. Pusey’s 
edition of the Greek of the Works of St. Cyril, Vol. VI, page 436, foot. The 
Greek there is, ὡς ἕνα μὲν υἱὸν προσκυνοῦμεν τὸν λαβόντα καὶ TO ληφθέν, 

(C.) So in his Censure of Cyril’s Anathemas VII., and VIII., he argues that 
Christ’s Humanity may be glorified and worshipped, whereas Cyril contends 
that all worship and glorifying to Christ must be.done to God the Word alone 
within His own flesh. 

Theodoret in response to Cyril’s Anathema VIII. which condemns the co- 
worshipping and co-glorifying of Christ’s Humanity with His Divinity, writes 
what shows that he did that very thing; for he replies: 

“We offer but one glorifying as [have often said to the Lord Christ, and 
we confess the Same One to be God and Man at the same time.’? This well con- 
fesses the Two Natures, but jndging from the last and other passages of Theo- 
doret it means that he co-worshipped them both. 

Like others of his party Theodoret professed to unite the worship of the 
Two Natures of Christ in one act of bowing (προσκύνησιν), and to make that act 
convey absolute worship to God the Word, and relative worship to the Man con- 
joined to him externally as the Nestorians said. That is the doctrine of Zwo 
Worships (δύο προσκυνήσεις) which was anathematized in Anathema IX. of the 
Fifth Ecumenical Synod. See it above. 

We shall have to refer to his favoritism for Man-Worship again. 

We shall find further on a Document emanating from John of Antioch, 
Theodoret, and others, forming the committee sent to Constantinople by the 
Apostatic Conventicle of the Nestorians at Ephesus, which is evidently aimed at 
St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., and its denial of co-worship to Christ’s 
Humanity with the Word. 

We must not forget that the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Definition and 
XIV. Anathemas has condemned the errors of the four Nestorian heresiarchs 
above. 

5. ANDREW, BISHOP OF SAMOSATA. 

This prelate was put forward by the Nestorian party as one of their cham- 
pions against St. Cyril of Alexandria’s XII. Chapters, and against the Third 
Ecumenical Council which he strongly opposed for some time after its close. 
We know him from his own utterances and from Cyril. I have referred, on page 
75 of this note, to St. Cyril’s reply to him in which he shows from St. Athanasius 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 117 


teach with us these doctrines (198), in order that the peace of the 


the profit of the doctrine of Economic Appropriation to guard against the Nes- 
torian error of worshipping Christ’s mere humanity. We have found Andrew 
of Samosata, on page 97, witnessing that St. Cyril forbade men to co-worship 
Christ’s flesh with His Divinity. Let us go into this latter passage somewhat 
more fully. 


As Cyril of Alexandria again and again in all his writing on our topic 
teaches that we must worship God the Word ““ within’ [or ‘‘with’’] His flesh 
{μετὰ σαρκός), but forbids to worship His flesh ‘‘ together with”’ (σύν) His Divinity; 
we hence find the Orientals who sympathized with Nestorius objecting by their 
spokesman, Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, to his condemnation in his Anathema 
VIII. of their Man-Worship, and saying in reply: 


““We do not assert the expression ‘co-bow’ and ‘co-glorify’ (τὸ συμπροσκυν- 
εἶσθαι καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι) as of two Persons or Hypostases or Sons, as though the 
bowing [that is, ‘‘¢he worship’’] were to be done in one way to His flesh, and 
in another way to God the Word; but, on the contrary, we offer [but] one bow- 
ing [that is, but one kind of worship], and the rest [of the acts of worship] as 
to One Son, and we use the expression “together with’? (civ), as even he him- 
self [Cyril] says in his first tome [as follows]: 


‘And indeed as He [God the Word] always co-sits (ovvedpetwv) as the Word 
with His own Father, and has come out of Him and is in Him as regards His 
{Divine] Nature, hear Him [the Father] saying [to the Word] even with flesh 
(μετὰ σαρκός), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool (Psalm cx., 1). So we also say that He is bowed to both by ourselves and 
by the holy angels. In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very un- 
learnedly and very unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the One and 
the same Son dogether with His flesh [σὺν τὴ σαρκί] as though the [preposition] 
μετά [that is, ‘‘wzth’’] were sometuing other than the [preposition] σύν [that is, 
‘together with’’|, which very assertion he himself [Cyril] has made, as has 
been said before, by his saying that He [God the Word] must be bowed to ‘ with 
flesh,’ and by forbidding His flesh to be co-bowed to with His Divinity.” 


The Greek of P. E. Pusey’s text has what means ‘‘very scientifically,” 
instead of ‘‘unlearnedly and unskilfully,’’ which is the reading of the old fifth 
century Latin translation, which the context seems to favor. 


Andrew of Samosata evidently takes μετά with the genitive in a very com- 
mon sense of it, that is wth, yet it has also the meaning wzthiu in which sense 
Athanasius and Cyril seem to use it when they profess to worship God the Word 
μετὰ τῆς σαρκός, that is, within His flesh. 


The Greek of the above as in P. E. Pusey’s edition of Cyril of Alexandria’s 
works, Vol. VI., page 316, is as follows: Φαμὲν ὡς πάνυ ἐπιστημονικῶς ἐπέσκηψε 
(Cyril] τοῖς σὺν τῇ σαρκὲ προσκυνεῖν τῷ ἑνὶ Kai TE αὐτῷ Ὑἱῷ βουλομένοις, ὡς ἑτέρου τινὸς 
ὄντος παρὰ τό Σὺν τοῦ Mera: ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἔθηκεν, ὡς προείρηται, λέγων αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρκὸς δεῖν 
προσκυνεῖσθαι, ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι τὴ Θεότητι τὴν σάρκα. 


118 : Act I. of Ephesus 


churches may be vreserved, and that the bona of concord and love 


Cyril’s Answer to the above passage has undoubtedly peen interpolated, for 
it contains towards the very beginning the Spurious Monophysite Confession on 
the Inflesh of God the Word, which has been so often falsely ascribed to St. 
Athanasius, but which, according to Hahn, Hypatius denied to be his, and which 
the Emperor Justinian, Leontius of Byzantium, and Anastasius the Presbyter, 
ascribed to the heretic Apollinaris (Hahn’s 2bliothek der Symbole, second edi- 
tion, Breslau, A. D. 1877, pages I9I-195, anc especially note 962, pages ΤΟΙ, 
192). Hence I do not feel sure that other parts of Cyril’s reply here may not be 
interpolated also. Hence I will not treat of it here at length but confine myself 
to what in it is of special interest as to our inquiry. 


Cyril in his reply to the above passage of Andrew shows that he had misun- 
derstood and misrepresented him (Cyril) to teach that a Man is to be co-bowed 
to with Ged the Word. For he begins by condemning Nestorius as ‘‘choosing to 
war against Christ's glory, and [45] having let loose against Him an unbridled 
tongue’’ by saying: 

“Let us [or ‘We may’’] worship the Man co-bowed to in the divine Conjunc- 
tion with God the Word’? (τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ συμπροσκυνούμενον ἄνθρω- 
πον). That utterance, he asserts, ends in making Christ ‘‘a’’ mere ‘‘inspired 
Man,’ and ‘‘the divine Conjunétion’’ mentioned by Nestorius will be only, 
therefore, such a union between God the Word and the Man born of Mary as 
Paul refers to when he writes, that ‘‘ He that is joined unto the Lord is One 
spirit’? (I. Cor. vi., 17). That Cyril calls a Relative Conjunétion (σχετικὴν ovva- 
gevav), as distinguished from the actual dwelling of the Substance of God the 
Word in the Man whom He took in Mary’s womb. For the Relative Conjune- 
tion is not an Incarnation of God the Word at all but is such an indwelling, not 
by God the Word’s Substance, but by His Spirit only, of the Man born of Mary, 
as occurred in His dwelling in the prophets by His Spirit. 


Then Cyril, as here, goes on as follows: 

‘But I think that thou shouldst say, without peril and without liability to 
be blamed, that the Word of God having put on flesh, as being [but] one Son, is 
to be bowed to [προσκυνητός] not apart from His own flesh, but on the contrary 
within it [wer αὐτῆς]; just as, certainly, the Soul of a man is honored within His 
own body [μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος], and that which is from both is indicated as. 
[but] one living being by one appellation [by the Word J/an, for instance]. 
When therefore thou art ready to discourse concerning Christ, the Saviour of us 
all, and thou partest the One into two and showest forth 4 Man conceived of as 
by himself and separate; [and] then DAREST TO SAY THAT THAT MAN OUGHT 
to be co-bowed to and co-called Gov as though Christ, the Son, who as to His 
Nature has come out of God, were another besides that Man, who can patiently 
endure and pass swiftly by in silence such very clear tongue-paining stuff against 
Him? For it was behooving [thee] on the contrary to say, WE worship the 
WorpD oF Gop made Man and called God and bowed to in humanity, and that 
because He is God by Nature and has come out of God the Father and made His 


appearance [ἔδει yap μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν, Σέβωμεν τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον γενόμενον ἄνθρωπον καὶ. 
“a i τ ; rf ' if 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 119 


between the Hervs (199), [priests] of God, may continue unbroken. 


χρηματίζοντα Θεὸν καὶ ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι προσκυνούμενον, ὅτι καὶ φύσει Θεός ἐστι καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ 
πέφηνε Πατρός]. 

Yes, say those of the opposing party, bnt thou thyself also I think art 
caught, for thou hast written in an Epistle that the Son co-sits with His Father 
with His own flesh (συνήδρευσεν ὁ Υἱὸς τῷ Πατρὶ μετὰ τὴς ἰδίας σαρκός); then how 
canst thou blame the one who says that the Man ought to be co-bowed to [that is, 
“to be co-worshipped’”|with God the Word, and to be co-called God with Him ? 
For the Σύν |that is, “the Zogether with] and the Μετά mean the same” (εἶτα πῶς 
ἐπιλαμβάνῃ τοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι χρὴ συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωτον τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ καὶ συγχρημα- 
τίζειν Θεῷ; ταὐτὸν γάρ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν καὶ τό Σὺν καὶ τὸ Μετά. 

[Cyril replies]: ‘‘Now in answer let us prove that ye are ignorant of the 
sense of the said terms and do not see into the nature of the things.”” Then, 
according to P. E. Pusey’s text, Cyril goes on to dilate on the different uses of 
the two prepositions, iv and Mera, in a way neither clear, nor consequential, 
nor very coherent, nor relevant, which is so unlike Cyril that I suspect that part 
also to be interpolated or tampered with in some way. But I hope to examine 
the manuscripts some day and see more definitely. His words there, as in 
Pusey’s text, do not bear to any considerable extent on the question of worship- 
ping Christ’s Humanity. I suspect also the genuineness of the words above, 
«με as,” to ‘one appellation’’ inclusive, but reserve my judgment on it, till 
I have examined further. 

Just below Cyril charges Andrew in his quotation above from him with cor- 
rupting the sense of his words and making him to believe that two Sons are 
co-sitting with the Father, whereas the truth is he believes in but one as so co- 
sitting, and that One God the Word within His flesh. He denies also the con- 
clusion that he ever taught that the Man is to be co-bowed to with God the 
Word and to be co-called God with Him. 


Venables in his article Andreas Samosatensis, in Smith and Wace’s Dic- 
tionary of Christian Biography, isin some things too favorable to this Andrew. 
But yet he calls him Nestorius’ ‘zealous defender,’’ and [states that he] ‘‘re- 
mained firm to him when his cause had been deserted by almost all. For his 
zeal in the defence of an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita, ὁ δράκων, 
[that is, “the Dragon”’]. The reputation of Andreas for learning and contro- 
versial skill caused John of Antioch to select him, together with his attached 
friend Theodoret, to answer Cyril’s Anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe IIL., 
1150; Liberatus, C. IV., p. 16). Cyril replied and wrote in defence of his An- 
athemas, which called forth a second treatise from Andreas (Labbe III., 827). 
When Rabulas, Bishop of Edessa, had gone over to the ranks of Cyril’s sup- 
porters, and published an anathematization of Nestorian writings, he included 
Andreas by name.’? Further on in the same article Venables tells us that when 
Acacius and John amicably received ‘‘Cyril’s letter written in answer to the 
rescript of’? the Council of Antioch in A. Ὁ. 433, which had been held to unite 
the Orientals to the Church, Andrew “‘ fully sympathized with his aged metro- 
politan Alexander’s distress and indignation,” at their approach towards an 


120 Acts: Of SE δ: 


[Salute the brotherhood by thee. The brotherhood with us salutes 
thee in the Lord]’’ (200). 


Orthodox reunion, and how Andrew, in his letters to that bitter Nestorian, ‘‘la- 
ments the gradual weakening of the opposition (Ib. 764, 765, 796)’’ to the doc- 
trines of Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council. ‘‘ These feelings were much 
heightened when peace was reestablished between Cyril and the East. Azndreas 
deplored the recognition of Cyril’s Orthodoxy by so many Bishops, and desired 
to bury himself in some solitude where he might weep (Ib. 784, 785, 796, ΟΣ 
He finally, however, came over to the side of the Orthodox, but not till it be- 
came evident that he would lose his see if he did not. After that he did not 
render himself so odious to them as Theodoret did, for the latter’s trimming and 
ambiguous course made him suspected by the Bishops in the Fourth Synod in 
A. D. 451. By that time Andrew seems to have passed away. 


In St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Defence of the XII. Chapters Against the Ort- 
entals, Chapter 2, Col. 324, B., tome 76 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, he opposes 
the error of worshipping the Nestorian separated humanity of Christ. 


And he points out the logical result of that heresy by asking them, or rather 
this Andrew, their spokesman: 


‘Ts our faith then in one of those like us, even a common Man, and do we 
no longer worship the Word who has appeared in human form for us ? [οὐκέτι δὲ 
τὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπείᾳ μορφῇ πεφηνότα bu ἡμᾶς προσκυνοῦμεν Λόγον; the Greek is here 
given from page 272, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of St. Cyril’s 
Works]. 


Below on this same Anathema, St. Cyril quotes St. Athanasius as condem- 
ning those who denied that the Christ who suffered and was crucified in flesh is. 
Lord and Saviour and God and Son of the Father, and as refusing the name of 
Christians to those who asserted that the Word came down on a holy Man, a 
mere human Christ, as He did on one of the Prophets, and who do not admit 
His Incarnation. 


In that work, under Chapter III., Cyril condemns the Nestorian relative 
worship of Christ’s Humanity; his words on that are in the same tome, col. 328, 
(0 10... and. column 220, Α. 


I quote: Cyril writes: 
‘‘Again in another Explanation he [Nestorius] says: 


‘That at the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, and 
things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord [Philippians ii., 10, 11]. ON account oF Him [God the 
Word] ΗΟ WEArs, I worsHIP Aim [the Man] who 15 worn. ON ACCOUNT OF 
Him [God the Word] wHo Is HIDDEN, J worship him [the Man] who 15 seen. 
God is not to be separated from him [the Man] whoisseen. For that reason 
7 do not separate the honor of Him who is not separated. I separate the Na- 
tures, but 7 UNITE THE WORSHIP [Χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἑνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν, page: 
282, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of Cyril’s Works]. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 121 


[REMARK.—P. F. Pusey, in his 7hree Epistles of S. Cyril, 
Archbishop of Alexandria, here states in a note, ‘‘Editor’s add, [I 
translate the Greek—Chrystal] ‘ Salute the Brotherhood who are with 


Here then we have plain Nestorian Man-Worship, because, as a Nestorian 
would word it, of the relative conjunétion of that Man to God the Word, that is, 
it is the worship of a creature relatively to God the Word. 


6. EUTHERIUS, BISHOP OF TYANA. 


Eutherius, an unworthy Bishop of the city of Tyana in the Second Cappa- 
docia, who was a bitter and irreconcilable Nestorian heretic and leader, and died 
in his errors, wrote a letter after the Third Ecumenical Council to John, Bishop 
of Antioch, to dissuade him from the union with St. Cyril of Alexandria which 
he saw was then likely to ensue, aud in it he complains much of St. Cyril’s XII. 
Chapters as heretical, and shows as against his Chapter, that is, Anathema VIII. 
that he (Eutherius) held to the worship of Christ’s separate humanity and teaches 
that Cyril rejected it. The passage is found in that Epistle, which is Chapter 
LXXIII. in the Syzodicon Casinense, which is a Latin translation from the 
work called the 7ragedy of his fellow-heretic, Count Irenaeus, column 682, 
tome 84 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and is as follows: 


‘“‘ But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, and takes away due adora- 
tion [from it] as he [Cyril of Alexandria] has commanded [us to do], for he says: 


“Th any one presume to say that the Man taken [Ὅν God the Word] ought to 
be co-adored with God the Word and to be co-glorified with Him, let him be 
anathema.’’’ (Quis vero incidit a Verbo carnem, et sic fert adorationem debi- 
tam, sicut jussjt iste qui ait: 

“Si quis praesumat dicere assumptum hominem coadorari oportere Deo 
Verbo, et congtorificari, anathema sit.”’ 


Just before in the same column 682, this Eutherius shows that he did not 
believe that the Virgin had brought forth God; for after insisting that St. Cyril 
of Alexandria must ‘‘utlerly reject by his own voice and subscription those things 
which they, especially [Cyril’s XII. Chapters], contain, which are blasphemy 
(blasphemiam),’’ and after further denouncing them vilely, he adds: 


‘But the incongruity also of the Chapters will be apparent to any one who 
is endowed with sense. Who admits that the holy Virgin was Bringer Forth 
of God in flesh? Quis carnaliter Dei particen Sanctam Virginem suscipiat ?”’ 
The expression, Dez particen is late Latin for Θεοτόκος. This language plainly 
implies that this Nestorian leader who, as Davids shows in his article on him in 
Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, had been one of the 
foremost men of the Nestorian party and who knew them well, believed that not 
one of them held that the Virgin brought forth God the Word in flesh. His 
reference here is to Cyril’s Anathema I. 

Next, in column 683, he attacks other Anathemas of St. Cyril, as for in- 
stance his Anathema X., where Cyril proclaims that it is God the Word, and 
not a mere creature who is our Mediator; for Eutherius writes: 


122 Act 1. ef Ephesus. 


thee. The Brotherhood who are with us greet thee in the Lord.’’’ But 
he does not give it in his text, nor is it found in this Epistle as in 
Act I. of Chalcedon in Hardouin or in Labbé and Cossart, which we 


‘‘Who indeed dares to pronounce in accordance with his abominable and 
novel expression that God the Word has been made our Apostle and High Priest, 
so that by that assertion he proclaims that He is a creature also, for the thrice 
blessed Paul cries, ‘Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, 
Jesus Christ who is faithful to Him that made Him’”’ [Heb. iti., 1, 2]. 
(“Quis vero pronuntiare audeat, circa hujus ineffabilem vocum novitatem, Deum 
Verbum apostolum factum, ac principem sacerdotum, ut per hoc eum fa¢turam 
quoque pronuntiet, ter beato Paulo clamante, Considerare apostolum et pontifi- 
cem confessionts nostrae Jesum Christum, qui fidelts est et, gui fectt eum ?”? 


‘‘Circa’’ in the text reading here seems to be a rendering for the Greek 
κατά with the accusative, and so is to be rendered, ‘‘ 2722 accordance with.” 


Eutherius’ conclusion that the Scripture which he quotes proves that Cyril 
made God the Word to be a creature is, of course, slanderous, as he could easily 
have learned if he had been willing to study his writings, for he would have 
found that Cyril would take made to refer to the humanity which he put on, 
though, in accordance with the do¢trine of the Economic Appropriation he 
refers the sufferings, etc., of that Man to God the Word. 


Next Eutherius attacks St. Cyril’s Anathema XI., which may be called 
his Eucharistic Anathema, where Cyril asserts that the flesh of Christ (which 
he elsewhere teaches we eat in the Eucharist) is not life giving as a man’s, but 
is as the flesh of God the Word. For Eutherius writes: 


“Or who is there that chooses to say or to hear that the flesh o. the Lord 
was not taken from our nature, but is the own flesh of the Word Himself, as 
though it had derived its existence from somewhere else?’’ (Aut quis est qui 
Domini carnem non ex nostra natura sumptam, sed ipsius Verbi propriam, tan- 
quam si aliunde substiterit, dicere eligat vel audire ?) 


At the end of tome 84 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, col. 1284, we find 
mention of Hutherius of Tyana’s Sermons as also extant among spurious works 
falsely ascribed to St. Athanasius. We are there told that they are in column 
1357, tome 28, of Migne’s FPatrologia Graeca, where they are not mentioned 
however as sermons, but with the following heading: 


“An Epistle of the same, having the force of a Preface and a Tragedy of 
the trouble of the Churches.’ 


For after the fashion of the Nestorian Count Irenaeus’ 7ragedy, in which 
he tries to make out the righteous expulsion of Nestorian deniers of the Incar- 
nation and Man-Worshippers from their sees to be wrong and tragical, the 
author of this Epistle, evidently referring to the same depositions for heresy 
and the strong and yet perfectly justifiable because necessary measures taken to 
keep the flock from creature-service, brands them unjustly as a tragedy. Any 
modern man who talks that way should not forget the persecutions and slaugh- 
ters of the Orthodox in Persia where the Nestorians had the government on 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 123 


followin our translation above. It is, however, found in this Epistle 
as in the Forematter to the Third Ecumenical Council, in column 
1277, tome 1, of Hardouin’s Conci/ia, and in it in the same /orematier 


their side, nor their usurpation of their sees, and their inducing the unbelieving 
_ Persian monarch Pherozes to expel them all from his Empire; nor should he 
forget the duty of the Orthodox civil ruler, on the other hand as God's minister 
in mere secular things for good (Rom. xiii., 4,) to enforce the mandates of the 
Iloly Ghost by an Ecumenical Council. The civil magistrate has no higher 
obligation than so to enforce with the secular arm the saving and elevating de- 
cisions of the spiritual power in the VI. Councils, and to suppress all that is 
opposed to them, as Christ will when He sets up His perfect form and adminis- 
tration of government on earth as we read in Revelations xi., 15, when “‘g7veat 
voices in heaven’? shall say, ‘‘ The Kingdoms of this world are become the 
Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and he shall reign forever and 
ever.’? See also Revelations xx., 1-7. Then the secular ministry of civil mag- 
istracy, always secondary and subsidiary to the spiritual, shall wholly give place 
to it, and instead of earthly monarchies and republics we shall have a Theocracy 
again, for Christ shall then reign in His Church and with His Church over all 
the wicked. God speed that blessed day.—Amen. 


The said Epistle is followed by 17 Propositions or Arguments against the 
‘Orthodox or those who sided with them or submitted to them. They are mani- 
festly heretical, and Nestorian. Photius ascribes them to Theodoret, and Marius 
Mercator to Eutherius of Tyana. 


Photius, in his Bibliotheca, Cod. KLVI., mentions the fact that he had read 
twenty-seven Λόγοι, that is, Sermons of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Against 
Different Assertions. Now the seventeen in the spurious work above men- 
tioned as among the documents wrongly ascribed to Athanasius, correspond in 
sense though not always in words to the titles in Photius of Sermons VIII. to 
XXIV. inclusive; and the Seventh is the Zpzst/e which precedes the seventeen 
Assertions in the spurious work. 


Now as to the rest of the 27 Sermons of Theodoret not found in the spurious 
work. ‘They are Sermons I. to VI. inclusive, and XXV. to XXVII. inclusive, 
and, from the headings to each of them preserved by Photius, they are plainly 
part and parcel of the same work. The 17 and the Epistle before them are evi- 
dently then only a part of the entire work. Perhaps, as sometimes occurs in 
the case of such manuscripts, the first leaves and the last had been worn away 
by time and handling, or else torn off and lost, and some dishonest book dealer, 
it may have been a Jew ora heretic, wishing to turn a penny, put Athanasius’ 
or some other Orthodox man’s name on them, which, of course, would greatly 
increase their value. Indeed, if they had been known as the productions of the 
dead Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana, their circulation would have been forbidden 
by the imperial laws, which commanded the destruction of all heretical litera- 
ture. See Venables’ witness on that in this work, page 15. If they were known 
to be Theodoret’s the case might be a little better for them, because, though as 


124 Ad. of Ephesus. 

Ppa hs Sk TN a Πρ δι. Ὁ “ὦ 
in column 322, tome 3, of Labbé and Cossart’s Concilia (Lutet. Paris, 
A. Ὁ. 1671). But both those editions have ‘‘ wll greei,’’ in the 
future tense, instead of Pusey’s lection, ‘‘gveet’’ in the present; that 
difference, however, is slight. 


vile a Man-Server as Eutherius of Tyana, he at last made his peace with the 
Church, at least outwardly; and when it was not known whether the work was. 
heretical or not (and Photius does not seem to have known that their Man-Serv- 
ing utterances are Nestorian, for he was a Man-Server, aye worse, an image- 
worshipper himself), their circulation might be permitted as some of his sounder 
works were, such for instance as his /cclestastical History. 

Yet it should be said that though they follow Spurious works ascribed to 
Athanasius, in column 1337, tome 28, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, they have 
no other heading even there in Migne’s edition than the one above given, “‘ dz 
Epistle of the same,’ etc., but who ‘‘the same’’ was, is not specified. Conse- 
quently if stuck in any where in the writings of any author, Athanasius, or any 
body else, they would naturally be deemed his by those who did not understand 
the wide difference between Athanasius’ Orthodoxy and the Nestorian heresy of 
Theodoret and of Eutherius. 

On the other hand Marius Mercator is deemed to have ascribed those Ser- 
mons of Theodoret to the obstinate Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana. For that 
view we have in column 1087, 1088, tome 48 of Migne’s Fatrologia Latina, the 
heading of a Fragment of one of his discourses, which reads ‘‘ A Hragment of 
a Sermon of Eutherius the Nestorian against St. Cyril, in the [Latin] transla- 
tion of Marius Mercator,’’ which, with certain omissions, is much like a part of 
the VIIth Sermon of the XVII., attributed to him by the editor of tome 28 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. ‘The corresponding place of all of it is found in 
column 1307-1360 of that tome 28, in Greek and Latin, though in a different 
Latin rendering from that given us by Marius Mercator. 

Garnier, the Jesuit, in his Preface to the Second Part of Marius Mercator’s 
Works, gives his opinion that the Sermons ascribed by Photius, in Codex XLVI. 
of his Bibliotheca, are Eutherius’; but he errs in making them only XX., 
whereas Photius makes them XXVII. there. See that Preface, columns 739, 
740, tome 48 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. Compare also columns 1287, 1288, 
in tome 28, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, where we find a Monitum or Warn- 
ing on those Sermons. Its author seems to incline somewhat to Garnier’s opin- 
ion that Eutherius was the author of the XVII. Sermons, in tome 28 of the 
Patrologia Graeca, which are wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius; but states, 
nevertheless, that the proof is not conclusive because Photius, in Codex XLVI. 
of his Bibliotheca, mentions them as Theodoret’s. 

Whatever by the decision as to whether Eutherius of Tyana was the author, 
or Theodoret, they are certainly the productions of a bitter Nestorian, for both 
those men were such, only that Eutherius died in his heresy; whereas Theodoret 
to save himself from Anathema, with his lips at least professed at last to submit 
to the Third Ecumenical Council, though it may well be doubted whether he 
really did in his heart. Possibly they may be Eutherius’, but if they were such 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 125, 


It can hardly be said that the absence of the salutations at the 
end in the form of the above Epistle, in Act I. of Chalcedon, is at all 


they would bring but little money, and they could not be circulated, but must 
be burnt, see page 15 above; whereas as Theodoret’s they could, and would 
bring more. Those facts may have led to the change of Autherius in the title 
to Theodoret between the time when Marius Mercator is alleged to have written 
in the fifth century and the ninth century when Photius wrote. 


I quote a part of the XVth of those Sermons of Eutherius, or of Theodoret, 
among the XVII., which brings in the doctrine of Nestorius of a mere external 
conjunction of God the Word and His Humanity, instead of the actual indwell- 
ing of that humanity by God the Word’s Substance; and directly contrary to 
Cyril’s Eighth Anathema, the paganism of co-glorifying that mere creature 
with God the Word. The blasphemy of some part of this creature-worshipping 
passage is so horrible, in that it ascribes in effect the utterances of St. Cyril as 
approved by the Third Ecumenical Council to the devil, that at first I thought 
of omitting it; yet afterwards concluded to translate it, that men might see the 
misrepresentations, and the vileness, and the plain Man-Worship of this justly 
deposed and bitter creature-worshipper; justly deposed I mean for co-glorifying 
Christ’s Humanity with the Word and for co-worshipping it with Him, contrary 
to the VIIIth Anathema of Cyril. I quote it: 


“Sermon XV. of Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, column 1385 of tome 28, of Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca, whence we transtate it; Sermon XXII. of Theodoret, 
Bishop of Cyrus, as mentioned in columns 80 and 81, of tome 103 of the 
same Patrologia Graeca.”’ 


Eutherius, or Theodoret, whichever of the two was the author, evidently 
supposing St. Cyril and the Bishops of the Third Council and all the Orthodox, 
to be Apollinarians, and to hold to only One Nature, and that the Divine, first 
falsely represents them all as denying that He had humanity, a thing which was 
inexcusable considering how before the Council in his #7ve-Book Contradiction 
of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, in the Synod itself, and in the two Epistles 
approved by it, and afterwards, he had uniformly repudiated any such inference 
from his writings. Then he goes on to prove, what no one denied, that Christ's 
Humanity suffered, and that we have hope because of His death and all bless- 
ings, though he denies impliedly St. Cyril’s teaching and St. Athanasius’ that 
we must economically ascribe those sufferings of the Man to God the W ord to 
prevent men from falling into the sin of creature-service by worshipping a mere 
Man. He then proceeds, as follows, to excite hatred against the Orthodox, 
and to set forth the dofrine of the Nestorian mere external conjunction as 
opposed to St. Cyril’s of the real Incarnation of God the Word, and the Nesto- 
rian Man-Worship against Christ’s prohibition of religious service to any crea- 
ture in Matthew iv., 10, as maintained by St. Cyril and the Third Synod of the 
whole Church East and West. 


‘Of how much hatred therefore are they deserving who, for the sake of 
their own evil belief [or “¢hrough their own evil belief,” διὰ τῆς οἰκείας κακοδοξίας], 


120 Act I. of Ephesus. 


conclusive against their having been in the original; for the address 
at the beginning is also omitted there. I mean the words, ‘‘ Zo the 
most religious and most dear to God, our fellow-minister Nestorius, 


strive to envy us on account of so many and so great benefits [of Christ], and 
forbid the [human] race to be honored (a) [in Christ’s Humanity], and separate 
the flesh which the Word in a marvellous manner co-joined (συνέζευξεν) to Him- 
self, and withstand Paul when he cries, What God hath joined together, let no 
man put asunder (6), and who let out their tongues to the devil for pay to hide 
the things which they have done against Him! (c). For there is nothing so 
heavy and unbearable to him as to see the nature [of man] which had been led 
astray by him, lifted up in the First Fruits (4) by the King of the heavens, and 
living nobly and above praise (e), and made superior to death, and having de- 
stroyed his tyranny (/) and been taken up into heaven and deemed worthy of 
the glorious seat, and recognized by all the creation as one in the supreme con- 
junction with Him who took him up, and as ONE WITH HIM IN THE INDIVISIBLE 
SHARING OF THE GLORY [and] OF THE DIGNITY WHICH IS ABOVE ALL EXPRES- 
SION.’? The Greek of the latter part of this, as in column 1385, tome 28 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, is as follows: ἀναληφθεῖσαν δὲ εἰς οὐρανὸν, καὶ τῆς ἐνδόξ- 
ov καθέδρας ἀξιωθεῖσαν, ἔν [ἕν seems to me a better reading than év.—Chrystal.] τὲ 
πρὸς τὸν ἀναλαβόντα πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει γινωσκομένην TH ἄκρᾳ συναφείᾳ, TH τῆς δόξης κοινωνίᾳ τῷ 
ἀμερίστῳ, τῆς ὑπὲρ πάντα λόγον ἀξίας. 


Here we have the Nestorian creature-worship, ‘‘2 the indivisible sharing” 
of the prerogative ‘‘g/ory”’ and ‘‘dignity’’ of God the Word by a mere crea- 
ture, the Man not indwelt by the Substance of God the Word in a real Incarna- 
tion, but joined to Him according to the Nestorian Conjunction as the prophets 
were joined to Him and as every good Christian man is joined to Him in the 
sense that He indwells them by the sanctifying and leading influences of His 
Holy Spirit, not by Its Eternal Substance, only that it was a higher kind of 
such an indwelling of the Spirit than occurs in other men; for it is denominated 
a supreme conjunction, in that the spirit indwells Christ’s Humanity more fully 


(a). Greek, καὶ κωλύοντες μὲν τὸ γένος σεμνύνεσθαι. 
(δ). Matt. xix.,6. Christ, not Paul, said that. 
(c). Literally, ‘‘ to hide the things done against Him.”’ 
(4). Christ’s Humanity, he means, with reference to I. Cor. xv., 20, 23. 


(e). It is not clear from this whether Eutherius held to the notion of one of the real 
founders of Nestorianism, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Anathema VI. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council), of an imperfect Christ being ‘‘gradually drawn off from evil, and so rendered better by 
the progress of works, and made spotless in his conversation,” etc, (Anathema XII. of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Synod, Hammond’s translation). Yet, as astrong Nestorian, it may be presumed 
that he held that blasphemy. 


(f). St. Cyril well held that the conquest of death was wrought by the only Nature of 
Christ which was capable of it, that is, by His Divinity. No mere creature can overcome 
death. But Cyril ascribes all the human things mentioned by Eutherius and all the divine 
things to God the Word to avoid our worshipping a Man, the former Economically, the latter 
because they could be wrought by Divinity only. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 127 


Cyril wisheth joy in the Lord.’? It is also omitted in Hardouin’s 
Concilia in Act I. of Ephesus, though it is found in the Forematter 
to it, and may have been read in Act I. of it; but it is found in Act 


than it does other men, and, so, more intimately joins him to God the Word, 
and therefore more intimately to the Father and the Holy Ghost also. 


And here we have, as a consequence of this Nestorian making a mere crea- 
ture, a mere inspired man, share the glory and the dignity of God Himself, the 
basis of what St. Cyril of Alexandria so accurately brands as ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that 
is, the worship of a Man, for such κτισματολατρεία, that is, creature-worshtip, is the 
natural and logical outcome of giving the glory and dignity of God to a crea- 
ture; an error condemned by the whole of the Old Testament in such passages 
as Isaiah xlii., 8, “Zam the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will 7 not 
give to another;”?’ Isaiah xlviii., 11, etc.; and by Christ Himself in the New, for 
He says, in Matthew iv., 10, ‘‘Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him 
only shalt thou serve.’’ “Hence such co-glorifying of a man, that is, a creature, 
with God the Word, is anathematized by St. Cyril in his noble Anathema VIIL., 
and by the Universal Church which in its Third Synod received that Anathema 
with the Synodal Letter in which it stands, and in its Fourth Synod received it 
again with the Synodal Epistles of Cyril, of one of which it is part, for all of them 
are approved by its Definition; and in the Definition and Anathemas of the Fifth 
Council it condemned the writings which had attacked Cyril’s XII. Chapters: of 
which itis one. Such writings condemned in the Anathemas of the Fifth are 
those of Theodoret and Ibas, See Anathemas XIII. and XIV. 


Further on in Sermon XVII., column 1393, B, this Eutherius or Theodoret, 
whichever of the two was its author, opposes the teaching of Anathema X. of 
St. Cyril of Alexandria that God the Word is our High Priest and Apostle before 
the Father, and argues that He can not pray for us as God but as Man; for he 
writes: 


‘“‘ How does the Master, Christ, intercede for us? As the Word only? And 
wnere [then] are the proofs of His equality in honor and dignity with the Father, if 
He intercedes as one inferior [to Him], and does not act with authority as hav- 
ing the same omnipotence [as the Father]? Or, will you assert plainly that it 
belongs to the First Fruit to intercede for His own lump [that is for the mass of 
his brethren] in order that He may show how closely He is related to the nature 
of flesh? [Eutherius may mean this as a sarcasm, as though St. Cyril held to but 
one Nature, and that mixed of Divinity and flesh].’’ Then in reply, Eutherius 
tries to prove what no one denied, that in Acts xvii., 30, 31, and in John SK 27. 
Christ 1s spoxen of as being a Man; only he goes wrong and makes His Christ 
a mere Man, after the Nestorian heretics’ wont. 

Cyril teaches that Christ prays as Man (see his Zfzst/e on the Right Fatth 
to Pulcneria anu Eudocia, page 309, Vol. VII., Part 1, of Pusey’s Cyrt/). He is 
prayed to as Goa. Cyril teaches also that Christ worships as Man, but is wor- 
shipped as God; for instance, in Section 1 of Book ITI. of his Five Book Con- 
traduction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and in Section 36 of his Scholia. 


128 Act I. of Ephesus. 


II. of Chalcedon, and in Conference VI. of the Fifth Council of the 
Christian world. In that Conference it is quoted from the Acts of 
the Third Ecumenical Synod. In Act II. of Chalcedon it is not so 
given, but is quoted merely as an Epistle of Cyril, without special 
mention of Kphesus. 

We can readily see why those parts may have been omitted in 
one or two places. It may have been in consonance with a common 
custom in reading documents to read only such parts as are pertinent 
to the matters under investigation and to omit the rest; or it may 


But Christ could not be a fit Mediator and High Priest for us if he were not 
God as wellas Man. For how coulda mere man hear millions of prayers at 
the same moment and intercede for each one’s particular needs unless he knew 
the needs of each one of those millions, and knew whether he prayed wisely or 
unwisely ὃ And how could He know all this and what it was best to ask for in 
each one’s case unless He had the exclusively divine prerogatives of omnipre- 
sence and omnipotence. And to God the Word therefore as Mediator and 
Intercessor may justly be attributed, according to the Ecumenically approved 
doétrine of Economic Appropriation, to keep us from worshipping a mere Man, 
all the things of His Humanity, as well as those which belong 267, se to His 
Divinity. So that Cyril’s Anathema X. is correct. 

(184), page 86. Greek, τὴν kal? ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν. 

(185), page 93. That is because He is God by Nature. 

(186), page 96. The Nestorians did so. 

(187), page 98. Johni., 14. 

(188), page 99. Johni., 14. 

(189), page τοὺ. Heb. ii., 14. 

(190), page IOI. Greek, idiév τε σῶμα τὸ ἡμῶν ἐποιήσατο, 

(191), page 104. That is, God the Word. 

(192), page 107. Greek, Θεοτόκον. 


(193), page 110. Here Cyril again condemns the Apollinarian heresy that 
Christ’s humanity was destitute of a rational soul. 


(194), page 111. Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν. 

(195), page 111. Greek, κατὰ σάρκα. 

(196), page 116. Greek, τοὺ Χριστοῦ. 

(197), page 116. Or, ‘‘elect,’’ as it is translated in the New Testament. 
(198), page 117. Greek, ταῦτα, literally, ‘‘ these things.”’ 


(199), page 119. τοῖς ἱερεῦσι, that is, “the sacerds of God.’’? Our “ priest” 
being a contraction from prestre, presbyter, that is, e/der, did not originally 
mean hzerev, that is (shortened) erv. 

(200), page 120. Pusey omits in his text (3 Epist.) the bracketed words. 


Reading of Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 129 
have been that those two parts were considered inappropriate now 
that Nestorius had refused to be corrected and persisted in his here- 
sies, even when called before an Ecumenical Council, and because 
he had practically spurned its authority by refusing to appear before 
it in response to its three summonses. 

I have said before that the address of St. Cyril’s shorter Epistle 
to Nestorius, approved in the Third Synod, may have been read 
there. The language on it there is so indefinite as not to forbid it. 
See it above. ] 

And after the reading of the Epistle, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
said: ‘This Holy and Great Synod have heard that which in advo- 
cating the right faith I have written to the most religious Nestorius. 
And I think that I am not convicted of straying in any respect from 
the right doctrine of the Faith, that is, of transgressing the Symbol 
(201) put forth by the Holy and Great Synod aforetime collected in 
the city of the Nicaeans. And I implore your Holiness to say 
whether I have written such matters correctly and blamelessly and 
in harmony with that holy Synod, or not. 


Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: The holy Faith put forth 
by the Synod in Nicaea being read; the Epistle of the most holy 
Archbishop Cyril and those things which were put forth by the Holy 
Synod are found to agree, and therefore I assent to these pious dog- 
mas and approve them. 


Firmus, Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, said: ‘Those things 
which were proclaimed in an Epitome and Summary by the Holy 
Synod in Nicaea, thy God-Worshippingness having explained subtly 
and plainly, has made more clear and forcible to us the sense of the 
Faith there put forth; so that in the doctrines expressed there is 
nothing ambiguous; all are in harmony, and the faith is made firm. 
These explanations therefore being accurate and certain, and intro- 
ducing no novelty, I also assent, for I received the same do¢trine 
(202) from the holy Bishops, my Fathers. 


Memnon, Bishop of the City (203) of the Ephesians, said: The 
En aaa I, LSE LEAD NA SUI ET Oa Ries BOLL ps ts Sa eS 


(201). Greek, τὸ ἐκτεθὲν παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης συνόδου, τῆς κατὰ καιροὺς ἐν 
τῇ Νικαέων συνειλεγμένης σύμβολον: Act I. of Ephesus, in Mansi’s Concilia, tome 
iv., col. 1140. 

(202). Or, ‘‘opinion,”’ or, ‘‘sentiments,’’ δόξαν. 

(203). The Latin translation in Coleti Covc., tom. II., col. τοοξ, has ‘‘ met- 
ropoleos,’’ metropolis. 


190 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Epistle just read of the most holy and most God-fearing Father, the 
Bishop Cyril, contains what agrees with the Faith put forth by the 
318 holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, to which we assent and which 
we approve, finding in them nothing defective nor discrepant. 


Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, said: 'The admirable and most 
pious and correct Exposition of the holy Faith composed by the 318 
holy Fathers collected at Nicaea, is made more clear and more plain 
by the Epistle of our most dear-to-God and most God-worshipping 
Father and Bishop Cyril (which in no respect differs from the Expo- 
sition (204) of that Faith) for what in the Exposition was proclaimed 
in an epitome, it has treated more fully. Wherefore, knowing the 
agreement between the Epistle, and the mind and the Faith of the 
318 holy Fathers, we assent and give our approval, as to them, so 
also to our Father Cyril who has made their meaning plain. And 
we believe those things which they set forth and which the Epistle 
of the before mentioned most holy Bishop has clearly explained. 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: The Faith which was put 
forth at Nicaea by the 318 holy Fathers assembled in that city being 
read to us, and the Epistle of the most holy Father and Bishop Cyril 
which was written to the most religious Nestorius concerning the 
Faith being afterwards read, we find it clearly and expressly con- 
cordant with the Faith put forth at Nicaea and shedding much light 
for understanding the sense of the doctrines proclaimed in it. Where- 
fore I myself also assent to the Epistle written by Cyril, our most de- | 
vout and most dear-to-God, Father and Fellow Minister, which, in no 
respect, differs from the right faith, but is in harmony with the apos- 
tolic preaching and with the Orthodox Faith put forth by the holy 
Fathers in Nicaea. 


Moreover I affirm that our most holy Father, Rufus, Bishop of 
the Metropolis of the Thessalonians, approves of those [two docu- 
ments]. For when I was starting to come to this Great and Holy 
Synod he gave me these commands, and begged on account of sick- 
ness to be excused from coming hither. And Iam persuaded that 
all the Bishops of Illyricum hold the same sentiments as I do, and 
that they have no doubt regarding the matters which have been 
read. 


(204). Greek, τῆν ἔκθεσιν τῆς πίστεως ἐκείνης. 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 131 


Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, said: Seeing the Epistle of the most 
holy and most God-worshipping Bishop Cyril, to be full of piety, and 
of harmony with the faith put forth by the 318 Fathers in Nicaea, I 
receive gladly its sense. And I acknowledge that the Church from 
aforetime and from the beginning thought the same; and from the 
works of the holy Fathers, and from the Holy Scriptures, and fronz 
the traditions of the faith, I know that it has held the same doctrines. 


Iconius, Bishop of the City of Gortyna, the Metropolis of Crete, said: 
The Faith and the Exposition of the most holy Fathers who came 
together in Nicaea being read, and the Epistle of the most holy 
Father and Bishop Cyril, being also read, I perceive that this Expo- 
sition of Cyril is accordant with them, and 1 therefore assent and 
approve, glorying in like manner in them in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And those who do not so 
think I know the Holy Synod will cast out 


Flellanicus, Bishop of the Metropolis of Rhodes, said: I follow 
the Exposition of the Orthodox faith of Nicaea, and because the 
Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril is ac- 
cordant with it, I keep to this Epistle also [as] containing the true and 
Orthodox faith. And God Himself also opposes Himself to those 
whose opinions are hostile to this faith. And let him be anathema 
who does not believe the holy Virgin Mary to be Bringer Forth of 
God, (θευτόχυν). 

Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, said: ‘The Epistle just read of our 
most holy and most dear-to-God Father Cyril turns out to agree in 
all respects with the Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who were 
collected in the city of the Nicaeans. Because therefore it is cor- 
rect, and, as I have said, it agrees with the Faith put forth by the 
holy Fathers, I both admire it and assent to it. In like manner also. 
I glory both in it and in the holy Fathers who, as I said, were col- 
lected in the city of the Nicaeans. 

Cyrus, Bishop of the city Aphrodisias, in the province of Caria, 
said: 1 also seeing the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to- 
God Cyril which he wrote to the most religious Nestorius, to be in 
harmony with and of the same force as the Faith put forth by the 
most holy Fathers who were collected in the city of the Nicaeans do 
assent to the same things as the Fathers who have spoken before me. 


Perigenes, Bishop of Corinth, said: 1 also hold and think con- 


152 Act 7. ef Ephesus. 


cerning the Faith now well put forth by our most holy and most 
devoted Bishop Cyril, that it is the same as the Faith put forth by 
the most holy and most devout Fathers in the holy Synod at Nicaea. 
I desire therefore to preserve without hesitating the established 
doctrines handed down from the beginning and until now preserved 
among us. 


Amphilochius, Bishop of Sida, said: Because the Epistle of the 
Archbishop Cyril, who is in all respects most dear to God and most 
devoted, exactly preserves the apostolic tradition (205), and accords 
with the Exposition of the Faith of the holy Fathers who were col- 
lected in the city of the Nicaeans, I admire its right Faith, and I agree 
with and approve the piety of its doctrines. 


Prothymius, Bishop of Comana, said: Waving found that the 
exposition of the faith last read to us through the whole extent of 
the Epistle of our holy Father and Bishop Cyril is in no respect less 
or more, except in bare words alone, than the Faith which was put 
forth by the 318 Fathers, I confess that in it was I baptized, and 
that in it I grew up, and was ordained and was accounted worthy of 
the priesthood. And in this faith I pray that my life may end and 
that I may keep it at the resurrection for the Lord Christ (206). 


John, Bishop of Proeconesus, said: I also assent to the same 
views as the most pious Bishop Prothymius, and so do I believe. 


Constantine, a Bishop of Phrygia Pacatiana, said: 1 also assent 
to the same views, and so do I believe. 


Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, said: In the different words we 
find one and the same Rule of the Faith, szzce both have been dictated 
by the same Holy Spirit. Perceiving therefore, that the Epistle of our 
most holy, and most dear-to-God Father and Bishop Cyril, is in 
harmony, and is concordant with the doctrines which have been 
orthodoxically and with precision pronounced and set forth by the 
Holy Synod in Nicaea, we also approve these and assent to them, for 


(205). Greek, τὴν ἀποστολικὴν παράδοσιν ἀκριβῶς σωζούσης. Amphilochius by 
this, of course, implies that the Personal Union and the Personal Indwelling of 
the Word’s divine Substance in the Man put on by the Word, and the refusal 
to worship that mere Man, and the do¢trine that the Word is to be worshipped 
within His flesh are parts of that Apostolic Tradition of Christian doctrine which 
had been held by the Church from the beginning. 


(206). Or, ‘‘ for the Anointed Master.” 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 133 


we find that the Epistle, like the scented oil, renews the fragrance 
of their faith. 


Theodulus, Bishop of Elusa, said: In conformity with custom 
(207) I follow the right faith of this Holy and Great Synod, and the 
Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril, and the 
Faith (208) put forth in Nicaea by our most holy Fathers, the 318. 


fidus, Bishop of Joppa, said: JI admire the faith of the 318 
holy Fathers who were in Nicaea. And I no less admire the Epistle 
also on the Faith, just read, of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
Bishop Cyril, which is in harmony with the Nicene Faith, as though 
written by the Holy Ghost. And I believe that he who remains not 


(07). Or; “‘like the.rest,”’ 

(208). The word Fazth (πίστις) here and often in these short speeches seems 
to be used in the sense of Symbol (σύμβολον), that is, Creed. Yet I have kept to 
the literal translation, /azth, became sometimes the χα} of Nicaea, may be 
intended to include the Faith in its Canons and Synodal Epistle as well as in its 
Creed. For certain points of Faith are treated of in its Canons as well as in its 
Creed; and the Quartodecimans are mentioned as heretics in Canon VII. of the 
Second Ecumenical Council, though they did not oppose the Creed, but only 
the decision of Nicaea on Easter, which is found in the Synodal Epistle. And 
the Canons of Nicaea treat matters of faith, as for example, Canons IV., V. and 
VL., treat of certain matters of faith on Church government; Canon VIII. con- 
demns the Catharists, that is, the Novations; and Canon XIX. the Paulianists, 
and brands their baptism, not that of the Catharists, as invalid. 


Yet it can not be denied that the chief matter to be decided here by the 
Bishops of the Council was whether St. Cyril’s Explanation of the Creed of 
Nicaea is correct or whether Nestorius’ is. If Cyril’s is right, then the Creed 
teaches a real Incarnation of God the Word and all its concomitants; whereas 
if Nestorius is, then the Creed teaches no Incarnation, and leaves Christ only a 
mere Man, and in that case all worship of Him is mere Man-Worship, that is, 
Creature-Worship. Cyril had put forth his interpretation of the Symbol in his 
Five Book Contradittion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius and in his Two Syn- 
odal Epistles to Nestorius, etc., and Nestorius had put forth his interpretation 
of the Creed in Sermons, etc., and the Bishops now decide in the Council that 
Cyril’s Explanation of it is right and Nestorius’ wrong; and their speeches have 
reference to that point. The Bishops, however, vote only on one of Cyril’s pro- 
ductions here, that is, his short Letter to Nestorius just above; and but one of 
Nestorius’, his Epistle in reply to Cyril, which comes below. 


Yet Cyril’s long Letter was approved by them. And we must remember 
that in that St. Cyril embodies the Nicene Creed, and explains it and its concom- 
itants more fully against Nestorian errors on the Incarnation, on the Relative- 
Worship of Christ’s Humanity, on His Mediatorial and High Priestly dignity, 
on the Eucharist, on Economic Appropriation, etc. 


184 Act I. of Ephesus. 


in the same faith of the Holy Ghost, should be cast out from the 
Holy and Universal (209) Church. 


Paulianus, Bishop of Maiuma, in the first Palestine, said; Recog- 
nizing that faith which was written by the most God-worshipping 
Bishop Cyril, to be the faith of the Fathers which we have learned 
from the 318 who met in the Synod at Nicaea, we admired that 
which was dictated by him as like the Oracles of the Holy Ghost, 
and we hold it fast and follow it. 


Daniel, Bishop of Colonia in Cappadocia, said: Recognizing the 
very words, and, so to say, almost the very syllables contained in 
the Exposition of the Holy Fathers who aforetime made up the 
Synod in Nicaea, and the sense of its unwritten dogmas, in the 
Epistle of our most holy and most devoted Father Cyril, as certain 
characteristics of the Fathers ; inasmuch as I have taught the same 
doctrine, and have received it, and have known moreover, that in 
the holy Church committed to me this teaching has been rooted, and 
believed in, and that the seeds of it were sown by the holy Fathers, 
I therefore confess that the Epistle of the most devoted Archbishop 
Cyril accords with the Exposition of the holy Fathers. This is both 
my belief and the belief of the holy Church under me, in the name 
of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost. 

Anysius, Bishop of Thebes, said: As I am co-joined to this com- 
mon presence of all the most holy Bishops, and to their belief, so 
also recognizing the right counsel of the most holy and most 
devoted Archbishop Cyril, I assent to it, for it is like the Exposition 
of the holy Fathers who were collected at Nicaea, and in harmony 
with it. 

Callicrates, Bishop of Naupactus, said: 1 assent to the Epistle 
put forth by our most holy Father and Archbishop Cyril, which is 
in harmony with the doctrines put forth by the holy and blessed 
Fathers who were collected in the holy Synod at Nicaea. 


Domnus, Bishop of Opus, said: Tf those who are ignorant of 
the exact faith have in any respect or at any time thought otherwise, 
they thought not rightly. But we declare that what has now also 
been formulated justly by the most holy Archbishop Cyril is in 


(209). Greek, καθολικῆς. 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 135, 


agreement with the holy Nicene Synod of the 318 inspired (210) 
Fathers, which Synod together with these matters now formulated by 
Cyril, we deem it by all means just to observe. And I believe inthe 
Father, and Son, and the Holy Ghost. And I pray that in this I 
may remain so long as the time of my life lasts, and that in this I 
may die. 

Nicias, Bishop of Megara, said: As we havecome hither think- 
ing one and the same thing, so also we have been taught to speak 
one and the same thing. Because therefore what has been written 
by the most holy Archbishop Cyril, and what was long since put 
forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea are in harmony, we also vote in 
approval with the rest, not having even one doubt in regard to what 
has just now also been so well formulated. 


Romanus, Bishop of Raphia, said: JI also agree with what was 
put forth by the 318 holy Fathers who met in Nicaea. And more- 
over I assent tothe Epistle of the most holy and most devout Bishop 
Cyril, for what it contains is in accordance with the Faith of the 
holy Fathers. 

Gregory, Bishop of Cerasus, said: What the Epistle of the 
most holy Archbishop Cyril contains is in harmony with the Faith 
of the holy Synod at Nicaea. 1 am pleased with the Epistle, which 
isin harmony with the Ecclesiastical Faith, and I assent to it and 
approve it. I came hither not only on my own behalf, but also on 
behalf of the most religious Eleusius Bishop of Neocaesarea the 
metropolis. From him I received these commands. 

Nunechius, Bishop of Selga in Pamphylia, said: Because the 
Epistle last read to us of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, 
Archbishop Cyril, is in harmony in all respects with the Faith com- 
posed (211) at Nicaea by the 318 holy Fathers, I also assent and 
thus I believe. And I pray that having lived in this Faith I may 
at last stand with boldness before the tribunal of Christ preserving 
still this Orthodox Faith. 

Solon, Bishop of Carallia in Pamphylia, said: In the same faith 
regarding Christ which the most religious and most God-fearing 
Archbishop Cyril has handed down, and still hands down, which is 


(210). Literally, ‘‘God-borne,’’ θεοφόρων πατέρων. 
(211). Greek, πίστεε * * * yeyevnuévy. The Latin has ‘“‘fide * * * 
edita’’ as the rendering of the two Greek words above. 


136 Act I. of Ephesus. 


in all respects in harmony with the holy and great Synod of Nicaea, 
was I baptized, and this I believe, and I pray that I may keep it to 
my last breath. 


Acacius, Bishop of Cotenain Pamphylia, said: 1 have heard the 
Epistle of our most holy Father and Archbishop Cyril, which is in 
harmony with the Synod of the holy Fathers who assembled at 
Nicaea, in all points of the Orthodox Faith, and I also confess that 
I so hold and so believe, and I also pray that I may keep it to the 
end. 

Taurianus, Bishop of Lyrba in Pamphylia, said: Waving heard 
the Epistle of our most holy Father and chief Bishop (212) Cyril 
which is in harmony in all points of the Orthodox faith with the 
Synod of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, I also confess that 
I so hold and believe, and I pray that I may keep it to the end. 

Nectarius, Bishop of Synea (213) in Pamphylia, said: I also be- 
lieve the same, and I approve the doctrine of our most holy Fathers 
aud Bishops and the Epistle of the most pious and most God-fearing 
Archbishop Cyril. 

Matidianus, Bishop of Coracisia in Pamphylia, said: I also 
agree with the confession concerning the right and sound faith made 


(212). The Greek term here used, ἀρχιεπισκόπου means literally ‘‘chief over- 
seer,’ and is used in a complimentary sense to Cyril, as is Bishop, (ἐπίσκοπος), lit- 
erally ‘‘overscer,’’ in these Acts a little further on bya Bishop. Of course none 
outside of the boundaries of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, ascribed by Canon 
VI. of the First Ecumenical Synod to Alexandria was in Cyril’s province. 
Romish writers make much of similar complimentary terms used of Rome. 
But we must remember that such expressions are never to be stretched beyond 
the Canons, which, in this instance for example, forbid Alexandria to exercise 
provincial, that is what is now called, in the case of Alexandria, and some 
other great sees, patriarchal jurisdiGion, outside of her own province, that is, 
outside of her own patriarchate. 

It should be added also that Cyril was the chief Bishop present at Ephesus. 
For, following what many Easterns term the Ecumenical principle affirmed in 
Canon III. of the Second Ecumenical Synod, and in Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth 
that the civil preeminence of the city determines the relative order of its Bishop 
in the Church, the Bishop of Alexandria was the chief Bishop there present, for 
the two who alone preceded him in order, the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop 
of Constantinople, were both absent. 

Cyril could, moreover, be spoken of as a chief overseer, and as an overseer 
because, under the Holy Ghost, he was the guide and leader of the Council. 

(213). Or, ““Sesennia”?-or, ““ Sebennia. 7 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 137 


by the holy Fathers now present, and with the Exposition concern- 
ing the faith, made aforetime not without God’s aid in the city of the 
Nicaeans, for I recognize it as apostolic, and in it I pray that I may 
remain, and that I may guard it entire to my last breath. 


Nesius, Bishop of Corybrassus in Pamphylia, said: 'The Epistle 
of the most holy and most dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril, to-day 
read, is in harmony with the holy Faith which was put forth by the 
holy and blessed Fathers who met in the city of the Nicaeans. And 
this Faith I pray that I may keep to my last breath. 

Epiphanius, Bishop of Cratia, said: I also approve the doctrines 
of the holy Fathers, and Bishops and the Epistle which was written 
by the most holy Archbishop Cyril, and I pray that I may abide by 
them to my last breath. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Heraclea in the Province of Honorias, said: 
I assent to the Epistle of our most holy and most devoted Father 
Cyril because it follows in every respect fhe Faith of the 318 Fathers 
who met at Nicaea. And so holding we pray to remain during the 
time appointed us by God [on earth]. 

Silvanus, Bishop of Ceratapa in Phrygia Pacatiana, said: ΑἹ- 
though at a late period I was deemed fit for holy baptism, notwith7 
standing, I have been baptized into that Faith which was set forth 
at Nicaea by the holy Fathers, the 318 Bishops, and into that fuller 
Explanation of it this day made to us by the Epistle of the Arch- 
bishop Cyril, which Explanation agrees with the Faith first men- 
tioned (214). And into this have I baptized very many. And this 
I pray that I may keep spotless until the day of the resurrection, 
and that then I may present it to Christ. 


Eutropius, Bishop of Etena in Pamphylia, said: Because the 
Epistle of our most holy and most devoted Father and Archbishop 
Cyril which has been read is in harmony in all respects with all that 
was put forth by the 318 holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea, 
I also assent and approve. And in this confession I pray that I may 
stand before the Master Anointed (215.) 

Secundianus, Bishop of Lamia, a city in the Province of Thessaly, 
said: ‘This I have believed and I do believe, and so have I thought 
and will think, in accordance with the Faith put forth by the holy 


(214). ‘That is, with the Faith of Nicaea, 
(215). Greek, τῷ δεσπότῃ Χριστῷ. 


138 Act I. of Ephesus. 

Psa ere Ae ee 
and spiritual Fathers, the 318 Bishops who met at Nicaea. And 
the Epistle just read of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father 
and Bishop Cyril, is in harmony with that Faith. 


Theodosius, Bishop of Echinaeus, a cityin the Province of Thessaly, 
said: also assent to the same documents and approve them. 


Rufinus, Bishop of Tabae, said: 1 also have the same mind as 
the most holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and I assent to 
the Epistle of our most holy and most devoted and most dear-to- 
God Father and Bishop Cyril, which is beautifully and correctly 
composed, and is in harmony with the same Faith. 

Theodorus, Bishop of Arbela (216), said: 1 also give the same 
judgment, and I approve with my vote the Epistle of the most holy 
and most devoted Bishop Cyril as being beautifully and orthodoxic- 
ally composed. 

Paul, Bishop of Anthedon, said: J also assent to the Epistle of 
the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril as being beautifully 
and orthodoxically composed, and as being like the Faith of our holy 
Fathers who met at Nicaea. 

Letoius, Bishop of Libyas, said: As our holy Fathers who 
assembled at Nicaea have arranged, (for they put forth the Faith in 
a manner befitting the Orthodox Faith) I also believe, and I assent 
to the Epistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril. 


Peter, Bishop of Parembola, said: I also have the same mind, 
and I assent to the Epistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop 
Cyril as being beautifully and piously composed. 


John, Bishop of Augustopolis, said: In conformity with the 
Faith of our holy Fathers, so do I also believe, and I assent to the 
Epistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril, which is in 
consonance with that Faith. 

Saidas, Bishop of Phaenis, said: ‘The Epistle of the most holy 
and most devoted Bishop Cyril is in accordance with the Orthodox 
Faith, and I assent to it. 

Theodorus, Bishop of Gadara, said: Because the Epistle just 
read of the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril is composed 
beautifully and religiously and in conformity with the Faith put 


See eee eae 


(216). Or, ‘‘ Aribela.”’ 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 139 


forth by the holy Fathers who assembled in the city of the Nicaeans, 
I also assent to it. 


Aeanes, Bishop of Sycamazon, said: J also, in like manner, 
assent to the Epistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop 
Cyril, which follows throughout the Orthodox Faith put forth by 
our most holy Fathers. 


Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura in Asia [Minor], said: The 
Exposition of the Faith of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, I 
mean the 318, I have believed from the beginning until even now. 
And because the Epistle written by the most holy and most dear-to- 
God Bishop Cyril to the most religious Bishop Nestorius, is in con- 
sonance with it I abide by it ana approve it, because as I have said, 
it is in harmony with the soul-profiting Teaching (217) of the 
Fathers. 


Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis in [Proconsular| Asza, said : 
The Epistle of the most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril being in harmony 
with the Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who were gathered in 
the city of the Nicaeans, that is the 318, and being of the same sense 
as that put forth [at Nicaea,]I both believe and have believed it, 
and so I pray to think [ever]. 

Maximus, Bishop of Cyme (218) in Asia [Minor], said: The 
Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and Arch- 
bishop Cyril being in harmony with the right Faith put forth by the 
318 holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, I approve it and assent 
to it, and I confess that this is the Orthodox Faith. 


Theosebius, (219) Bishop of Priene in Asia [Minor], said: I be- 
lieve in the Faith put forth by the 318 holy Fathers, which 1 have 
also passed on to the holy Churches of God. Ana at the same time 
I believe in the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
Archbishop Cyril which was written to the most religious Nestorius, 
because it is in harmony with the Faith of the holy Fathers who met 
in Nicaea. 

Eutropius, Bishop of Evaza, said: In accordance with the Faith 


(217). ᾿Εμμένω καὶ συντίθεμαι, συμφώνῳ οὔσῃ, ὡς ἐφην τῇ τῶν πατέρων ψυχωφελεῖ διὸ- 
ασκαλίᾳ. 
(238). Ὅς; © Cumas” 


(219). The margin has, ‘“<’Theodosius.”’ . 


140 Act I. of Ephesus. 


of the 318 Bishops (220) who came together in Nicaea, I myself also 
have believed and do believe in the Epistle of the most dear-to-God 
Bishop Cyril, because it agrees with it, and so do I pray that I may 
die. 

Euthalius, Bishop of Colophon in Asia [Minor], said: Inasmuch 
as the Epistle of the most consecrated and most God-worshipping 
Bishop Cyril, [written] to the most religious Nestorius, is in har- 
mony with the holy Faith of the holy Fathers who came together in 
Nicaea, I also am persuaded and approve, and believe in accordance 
with this Transmission (221). 

Docimasius, Bishop of Maronia, said: Seeing that the Letter 
of our most dear-to-God and most consecrated Father, Archbishop 
Cyril, is in harmony with the Faith, piously and Christ-lovingly put 
forth by the holy Fathers in the city of the Nicaeans, I co-stand by it 
and am co-pleased with it, because I have [always] been so minded, 
and pray that I may keep it safe and sound to the end. 


Lucian, Bishop of Toperius, (222) said: ‘The Epistle of our 
most holy and most dear-to-God Father Cyril which he sent to the 
most religious Nestorius, having been read, I am co-pleased with 
its doctrine, and J find it in all respects in accord with the Exposi- 
tion set forth by the Holy Synod in the metropolis of the Nicaeans, 
and I am co-pleased with it, and will keep it entire to the end. 


Ennepius, Bishop of Maximianopolis, said: Waving found the 
Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, Bishop Cyril, 
written to Nestorius the most religious, to be in harmony with the 
Faith set forth by the most consecrated Fathers in the city of the 
Nicaeans, I am co-pleased with it, and co-confess that I so think. 
And I trust that I shall keep it unshaken. 


Stephen, Bishop of Dium, said: We have read the Epistle of 
our most holy and thrice blessed Father, Bishop Cyril, and it is in 
harmony with the Faith put forth by the holy and God-inspired 
Fathers in Nicaea. Wherefore I also approve it, and have believed 
and do believe it. 


(220). The Latin translation has ‘‘Fathers,’’ instead of ‘‘ Bishops”’ here. 

(221). Or, ‘‘deliverance,”’ or ‘‘tradition;” that is, Cyril’s ‘‘ deliverance,” 
that is, his statement of doctrine in this Epistle to Nestorius. 

(222). Or, ‘‘Toperus,’’ according to the Latin. 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 141 
ETI Oe SR ce VEE Nee es eines Asoo ες τὐξο Oo συ σον 
Modestus, Bishop of the city of the Anaeans (223) in Phrygia, 
said: also abide by the Faith put forth by the 318 holy Fathers 
who met in Nicaea, and, furthermore, by the Epistle just now read, 
which was written by our most holy Father Archbishop Cyril to the 
most religious Nestorius, because it is in harmony with the Faith of 
the aforesaid holy Fathers. 

Aphobius, Bishop of Colon, said: Because the Epistle of the 
most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril which has been read 
to the Holy Synod, is in harmony with the Faith set forth by the 
318 holy Fathers in Nicaea, I assent to it and believe it. 

Maximus, Bishop of Assos in Asia, said: I also believe that 
Faith and abide in it, just as our most holy and most dear-to-God 
Bishop Memnon has set forth. 

Dorotheus, Bishop of Myrrhina, acity in Asia (224), satd: For- 
asmuch as the Epistle, already read, of our in all respects most holy 
and most dear-to-God Bishop and Father Cyril agrees with the Faith 
set forth by the 318 holy Fathers, I also believe it, and am so 


minded. 
Eucharius, Bishop of Doracium (225), said: Waving examined 


the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God chief Bishop 
(226) and Father Cyril, written to the most religious Nestorius, and 
having seen that it is correct and very just, I find it to be in har- 
mony with the Faith set forth by our holy Fathers who came to- 
gether aforetime in Nicaea; and I so think, and so believe, and I 
pray that I myself also may live and die in the Lord. 

Theodore, Bishop of Aninetum, said: I myself also approve the 
statement of the holy Fathers on the Faith set forth in Nicaea, and 
the Epistle written by the most consecrated and most dear-to-God 
Bishop Cyril to the most religious Bishop Nestorius. 

Eudoxius, Bishop of Choma, a city of Lycia, said: 1 admired 
the things written by our most consecrated and most holy Father 
Cyril to the most religious Nestorius, because they are in consonance 
with the Faith set forth by the holy Fathers in Nicaea. And I assent 
to them, and confess that I am so minded, just as our most holy 
Fathers have also stated. 


(223). Bingham, in the /zdex of Episcopal Sees at the end of the ninth 
book of his Antiquities, mentions a city of Anaea in Asia. 

(224). -“Acity”’ isin the Latin, not in the Greek. 

(225). Dyrrhacium, according to the margin. 

(226). Greek, ἀρχιεπισκόπου, that is, ‘‘ archbishop.” 


142 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Philip, Bishop of Pergamus, said: 1 assent to the Faith set 
forth by the 318 holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea, and in 
accordance with these very canons (227) which they themselves set 
forth ; and I assent to the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Cyril 
because it is in consonance with the same canons (228). And so do 
I think and believe. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Magnesia, a city in Asia (229), said: I assent 
to the Faith put forth by the 318 holy Fathers who met in Nicaea, 
and to the Epistle of our most holy Father, Archbishop Cyril, be- 
cause its contents are in harmony with it, and I so think and believe. 

Eutychius, Bishop of Erythra, a city of Asia, said: Being per- 
suaded by my organs of sight and by the utterances of the holy 
Fathers who came together in Nicaea, and of the Metropolitans from 
different provinces, I profess and believe the Epistle written to the 
most religious Nestorius by the most holy Bishop Cyril. 

Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, in old Epirus, said: Waving lis- 
tened to the Epistle this day read before this Holy and Great Synod, 
which our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and Fellow-Min- 
ister Cyril wrote to the most reverent Nestorius, and having found it 
to be in harmony with and co-professing with the Faith put forth by 
the Holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea, and who set forth 
the Orthodox Faith, I have deemed the text of the Epistle worthy 
of all acceptance, and so I also believe and co-assent to its Orthodox 


Faith. 
Dorotheus, Bishop of the city of Dodona (230), satd: 1 also ap- 


prove and assent to what Donatus, the most holy Bishop of my 
Metropolis, has stated. 

Heracleon, Bishop of Tralles (231), said: I follow the steps of 
the Holy Fathers and I stand by the Exposition of the Synod of the 


(227). ) (Greek) nove κανόνας ἐκείνους οὕσπερ αὐτοὶ ἐξέθεντο. 

The Latin in the parallel column in Coleti renders κανόνας by sanétiones; and 
I am not sure but that ‘‘rules’’ in the sense of exaéiments on faith may be meant. 
For κανόνος means ‘‘rules,’’ as well as what we call Canons. I take it here to 
include especially the Creed as being a chief zorm, that is, rule of faith there 
laid down. 

(228). See the last note above. 

(229). ‘‘Acity’’ is lacking in the Greek, but is in the Latin. 

(2529). (Or,**Dodone.”” 

(221). Or, i beallis.”? 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 143 


318 Bishops, which was held at Nicaea, who preached the Orthodoxy: 
and having heard the most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop, our 
Father Cyril, preaching the same do¢trines again, or rather enlight- 
ening us, in his Epistle in this Holy Synod held in the Metropolis of 
the Ephesians, and perceiving that those utterances are in harmony 
with the 318, I also approve and pray to abide in this faith, and pray 
by your prayers, so to end my life. 


Paralius, Bishop of the city of Andrapa, said: Waving been 
brought up in the Faith set forth by the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, 
I also so believe, and approve, and co-pray (232). AndJI find the 
things written by our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, Arch- 
bishop Cyril, in the longer Exposition which has been just read to us 
(233), to be consonant in all respects with the same Forthset (234); 
and I approve, and pray that I may end my days in this faith. 

Archelaus, Bishop of the city of Myndus in Caria, said: ‘The 
Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, Archbishop 
Cyril, is of the same character as the Faith piously and savingly 
handed down to us by the holy and most dear-to-God Fathers and 
Bishops who were gathered in the city of the Nicaeans, and is in 
harmony with that faith, and so I believe; and so do I pray [to be- 
lieve forever] (235). 


Abpellas, Bishop of Cibyrrha in Caria, said: J assent to the same 
things (236) and approve them. 


Thomas, Bishop of Derbe in Lycaonia, said: I myself cheerfully 
assent to the Faith of the Holy Fathers, and to the Epistle written 
by the most holy and most God-worshipping Archbishop Cyril, and 
I am of one mind and of one faith with it. 


(232). Paralius means that he makes the same prayer as Heracleon and 
others who had just spoken. 

(233). That is, Cyril’s Epistle to Nestorius, which is really a longer exposi- 
tion on the faith than the Creed of Nicaea; and indeed is an exposition, that is, 
an explanation, of that Symbol itself. 

(234). That is, the Symbol, that is, Creed, set forth as Paralius had just 
said at Nicaea. 

(235). The Greek has nothing after ‘‘I pray,’’ but the Latin has, “et in 
posterum credere.”’ 

(236). Greek, τὰ αὐτὰ, which refers to the documents mentioned and to the 
statements foregoing of Bishops in approving them. 


144 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Themistius, Bishop of Jassus in Caria, said. I believe the same 
sentiments, and give my assent to the same sentiments, in accordance 
with the sound faith of the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and in ac- 
cordance with the Epistle read of the most dear-to-God Archbishop, 
our Father Cyril. 


Spudasius, Bishop of Ceramus (237) in the Province of Caria, said: 
I nave lived in the Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who were 
gathered in the city of the Nicaeans, and I pray that I also may live 
in it And in like manner I receive the Epistle written by the most 
holy Cyril, our chief Bishop (238) and Father, to the most God- 
worshipping Nestorius, because I regard it as of the same tenor 
(239), and I receive it because it differs in nothing from the Faith. 
Wherefore I also believe in both of them and co-vote [on the same 
Orthodox side]. 


Aphthonetus, Bishop of Heraclea in Caria, said: The Epistle of 
our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and chief Bishop (240) 
Cyril is an explanation of the pious Faith (241), transmitted to us 
by the most holy Fathers and Bishops [who met] in Nicaea; and is 
fundamental; and [accordingly] I make acknowledgment of my be- 
lief in both, and pray to believe so forever. 


Philip, Bishop of Amazon in Caria, said: I both assent and 
believe, in consonance with the heavenly and glorious Faith set forth 
by the 318 most pious and most dear-to-God Bishops who came to- 
gether in Nicaea, and in accordance with the Epistle written by the 


(237). Or, ‘‘Cerama;”’ or, ‘‘Cerami.”’ 

(238). Greek, ἀρχιεπισκόπου, that is, as being the chief Bishop present, or 
more probably as being the chief Bishop in the maintenance and defense of 
Orthodoxy against Nestorius. The remark of a writer in the Πηδάλιον, Athens 
edition of 1841, page 94, that Cyril was the ‘‘ Leader’’ of the Third Ecumenical 
Synod is true; and the repeated commendations of him and witness to him by 
the assembled Bishops attest his just worth and claims as God’s champion 
against Nestorian Man-Service and Relative-Service. 


(239), Greek, ὠμώνυμον; or, ‘‘of the same sense;’’ or, ‘‘kind,”’ with the 
creed of the 318. ‘‘Exposition,’’ is often used of that Symbol in these Acts. 

(240). This expression is explained by me in a note a little above. See it 
there. 

(241). The term “Faith” is used here, especially, as often in such places 
in these Acts, of the Creed of the 318; though not, of course, to the exclusion 
of the rest of the faith, which was not defined at Nicaea in it, or in its Canons, 
or in its Synodal Epistle, but afterwards in other documents. 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 145 


most holy and most dear-to-God Father, the Archbishop Cyril, be- 
cause it is in harmony with the same Holy Exposition; andI ama > 
co-voter with His God-worshippingness (242) on the same side with 
him, 

Phanias, Bishop of the city of Arpasa in Caria, said: In accord- 
ance with the Exposition of the heavenly Faith, which Exposition 
was set forth by the 318 Holy Fathers who came together in the city 
of the Nicaeans, and in accordance with the Epistle written by the 
most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop our common Father Cyril, 
which was written to the most religious Bishop Nestorius, which has 
been read to us, and which is of the same tenor (243), as the Faith 
of the Holy Fathers, I acknowledge that I think the same, and I 
assent to the same. 


Promachius, Bishop of Alinda in Caria, said: I myself also 
knowing that the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-Ged 
Father, and chief Bishop Cyril agrees with the Faith set forth by 
our most holy and most dear-to-God Fathers and Bishops who came 
together in Nicaea, do [therefore] believe and think [the same] and 
co-assent to the same things. 


Satdas, Bishop of Phaenis in Palestina Salutaris, said: I assent 
to the Epistle put forth by our most holy and most dear-to-God 
Father, Archbishop Cyril, for I know that it is in agreement with 
the Faith set forth by the holy and God-inspired:(244) Fathers, who 
met together in Nicaea; and I believe and think in accordance with 
it, and I co-vote and co-approve what has been said by our most 
devout and most dear-to-God Bishop Juvenal because it is in har- 
mony with the Exposition of the Fathers. 


Senecion, Bishop of the city of Cordia (245), satd: In accordance 
with the Faith defined by our Holy Fathers, the 318 at Nicaea, who 
were filled with the Holy Ghost at Nicaea, aye, and moreover, in 
consonance with the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God 
Father Cyril, which has just been read to us, I believe, and I co- 
approve. 


(242). That is, with Cyril. 

(243). Or, ‘“‘of the same force,’’ ὁμοδύναμον. 

(254). Greek, θεοφόρων, that is, ‘‘God-borne ;’’ that is, ‘‘God-inspired.” 
(245). “Or, **Codra.?? 


140 Act I. of Ephesus. 


John, Bishop of Hephaestus in Augustamnica, said: Because the 
Faith set forth by the Holy Synod, which was celebrated by the 
holy Fathers in the city of the Nicaeans, and the Epistle written 
to the most religious Nestorius by our most holy and most dear-to- 
God Father and Bishop Cyril, have [but] one sense throughout and 
one Faith in different syllables, I also assent to both of them (246), 
and hold the same sentiments (247), and pray that by the grace of 
the Holy Trinity I may live in them (248). 

Athanasius, Bishop of Paralus, said: J also assent to the same 
things, and I approve the right faith of our Father Cyril, the Arch- 
_ bishop. 

Eusébius, Bishop of Aspona (249), @ city of Ancyra (250), sata: 
Having discovered the great agreement which there is between the 
Faith throughout the Epistle put forth by our most God-worshipping 
and most dear-to-God Father and Bishop Cyril, and the Faith which 
was set forth of yore (251) by the holy Fathers, I co-approve and 
receive and believe the same things, and I glorify (252) the same 
things and teach them. 


Theon, Bishop of Sethroetus (253), said: 1 co-approve the Epistle 
of our most holy Archbishop Cyril, which teaches (254) im conso- 
nance with the Faith set forth by the most holy Fathers who were 
once gathered in Nicaea. 


Daniel, Bishop of Darnis, said: 1 co-approve the Epistle of our 
most holy and most dear-to-God Father Cyril which has been read, 
because its teachings (255) are in consonance with the Faith of our 


most holy Fathers in Nicaea. 
Ti SON Esa TS Te ys Sr 


(246). Greek, ταύταις, which the Latin in the parallel column renders 
utrique, which I follow. 

(247). Or, ‘and co-glorify ” (both). 

(δὴ. (Orr iby, tem. 7 

(249). The margin reads, Αὐσόνων. 

(250). The Latin note on this in Coleti means ‘“‘ Perhaps Galatia,’ instead 
of Ancyra. 

(251). Greek, πάλαι. 

(252). Greek, δοξάζω, which may be rendered “7 ¢hink.”’ 

(253). Margin, ’O6poiryc, ᾿Αθροϊτῶν. 

(254). Greek, ἐκδεδομένῃ; margin in Coleti, ἐκθεμένη, literally, ‘‘ Having given 
forth,’’ or, ‘‘ Having set forth.”’ 

(255). Or, ‘‘ because it sets forth in consonance,”’ etc.; συνῳδὰ ἐκθεμένη 


The Voting on Cvril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 147 


Macarius, Bishop of Anteum, said: Finding the same grace of 
the Holy Spirit, both in the Faith put forth by the most holy Fathers 
at Nicaea, and in the Epistle of the most holy and most devout 
Archbishop Cyril I admire it and remain in it, and I pray to keep. 
ever this which guides and saves the race of men (256). 


Sosipater, Bishop of Septimiaca, said: ΤῸ speak at much lengtin 
and to declare the wonders (257) of the holy Fathers, is not in my 
power, but belongs to some other who boasts the greatest learning. 
Therefore I say [in brief] that forasmuch as the contents of the 
Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and Arch- 
bishop Cyril, which was written to Nestorius, and which has been 
read, are in harmony with the Synod which was held in the city of 
the Nicaeans, I also so believe, think, and co-approve, as our holy 
Fathers have also thought and believed. 

Samuel, Bishop of Dysthis in Pentapolis, said: I believe (2 58) 
as did the holy Fathers who were gathered in the Synod of the 
Nicaeans, and having listened to the Epistle of our most holy and 
most dear-to-God Father and Archbishop Cyril, I so think and be- 
lieve [as he does]. 


Strategius, Bishop of Athribis in the Province of Augustamnica, 
said: Because the contents of the Epistle of the most holy and most 
dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril written to the most religious Nestorius, 
which has been read, is in harmony with and is of the same faith as 
our holy Fathers, the Three Hundred and Eighteen Bishops who 
sat together in Nicaea, I necessarily have so thought and so think, 
and I have believed and do believe it, and by the favor of the Holy 
Trinity and of this holy dear-to-God Synod, I will abide in that 
faith. 


Eusebius, Bishop of Nilopolis, in the Province of Arcadia, said: 1 
have received the Epistle because it agrees with the Faith of the 
holy Fathers, and I believe in accordance with its sense. 


DAR Ls ἀφο δε ined δ ee I eee ἜΞΕΕ. ΞΥ 9: ---- 
(256). Μακάριος ἐπίσκοπος ᾿Αντέου εἶπεν" Εὑρὼν τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος 
χάριν ἐν τε τῇ ἐκτεθείσῃ παρὰ τῶν ἁγιοτάτων πατέρων ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστει, ἐν τε τῇ ἐπιστολῇ τοῦ 
ἀγιοτάτου καὶ ὁσιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κυρίλλου͵ θαυμάζω καὶ ἐμμένω, καὶ εὔχομαι ταύτην 
διατηρεῖν, κυβερνῶσαν καὶ σώζουσαν τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος. See Mansi, Conctlia, tom. 
ΤᾺ, col. 1160, E. 
(257). Or, ‘‘the admirable things,’’ τὰ θαύματα. 


258). Or, ‘‘I believe in consonance with the holy Fathers,’’ etc 


148 Act 7. of Ephesus: 

Marinus, Bishop of Fleliopolis in the Province of Augustamntica, 
said: J have received the Epistle of our most holy Archbishop 
Cyril, because it is correct and in agreement with the Faith of the 
holy Fathers [who met] in Nicaea. 


Paul, Bishop of Flavonia, said: 1 hold and believe one and the 
same radiant (259) Faith, which was set forth aforetime by the holy 
Fathers who met at Nicaea, and is now shown to be in harmony with 
this great Synod, and heralded forth with more brilliancy and clear- 
ness by the Epistle itself of our most holy Father Cyril, and I assent 
to that Epistle, through which [Epistle] also I trust to be saved, by 
confessing it in Anointed (260). 


Metrodorus, Bishop of Leonta (261), said: Inasmuch as the holy 
Faith put forth by our holy Fathers in the city of the Nicaeans, and 
the Epistle just now read of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
Father and Archbishop Cyril, written some time ago to the most 
God-worshipping Nestorius, contain [only] one faith and meaning 
throughout in different syllables, I also necessarily assent to it, for I 
believe and think (262), and co-confess the same things, by the grace 
of the Holy Trinity. 


Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabassus, satd: It is superfluous to ask 
the Bishops from Egypt a reason (263) on the right Faith, for it is 
easily understood by all that we follow out thoroughly and co-ap- 
prove the faith set forth by our most holy and most devout Father 
and Archbishop Cyril, for it is in harmony with the Faith of the 
holy Fathers. 


FHleraclides, Bishop of the Heracleans in Arcadia, said: Because 
the Faith of our holy Fathers, who were formerly assembled in the 
city of the Nicaeans, and the Epistle of our most holy and most 
dear-to-God Father and Archbishop Cyril, preach and confess [but] 
one harmonious faith, I who have been born and reared in it, pray 
to be of the same judgment forever, by the grace of the Holy 
Trinity. 


(259). Greek, διαλάμπουσαν πίστιν. 

(260). Greek, ἐν Χριστῷ, that is, ““1π Christ. 

(261). Or, ‘‘Leonti,’’ or, ‘‘ Leontes.”’ 

(262). Or, ‘‘ glorify,’ δοξάζων, 

(263). Greek, περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως ἀπαιτεῖσθαι λόγον. It may also be ren- 
dered, ‘‘to ask an account concerning the right faith.”’ 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 149 


Sabinus, Bishop of Pan in the Province of Thebats, said: As the 
Faith of the holy Fathers which was set forth in old time in the city 
of the Nicaeans, and the Epistle of our most God-worshipping and 
most religious Father Cyril have the same harmonious faith, I also 
{therefore] necessarily, by the grace of the Holy Trinity, assent to 
that faith. 


Heraclitus, Bishop of Tamiathis, said: Because there is no dif- 
ference between the Epistle of our most holy and most God-worship- 
ping Father and Archbishop Cyril and the Faith set forth in old time 
in the city of the Nicaeas by the holy Fathers, I also necessarily 
assent to that Epistle, by the Anointed’s grace (264). 


Isaac, Bishop of Elearchia, said: J confess that there is entire 
harmony between the Symbol (265) of the holy Fathers, and the 
Epistle of the most holy Cyril, and I also necessarily assent to that 
Epistle by the Anointed One’s grace (266), (267). 

Eutychius, Bishop of Theodosiopolis in Asia, said: In the Epistle 
written by the most dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril, which was sent 
to the most religious Nestorius, we find nothing foreign to what we 
believed from childhood, for it has been found to be in harmony with 
the Faith set forth by the Three Hundred and Eighteen who came 
together in the city of the Nicaeans, and I so believe, as the holy 
Fathers also have stated in this Great Synod. 


Adelphius, Bishop of Sats, said: Inasmuch as the Faith of the 
holy Fathers, which was set forth in old time in the city of the 
Nicaeans, and the Epistle of our most dear-to-God and most rever- 
ent Father Cyril have [but] one harmonious Faith, I also, by the 
grace of the Holy Trinity, necessarily assent to that Epistle. 


Rhodon, Bishop of Palaeopolis in Asia (268), satd: Because the 
Epistle of the most holy and most devout Bishop Cyril is not at all 


(264). That is, ‘‘ by Christ’s favor.’’ 

(265). Greek, τῷ Συμβόλῳ, that is, ‘the Creed.”’ 

(266). Greek, χάριτι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, that is, ‘‘ by Christ’s favor.” 

(267). Ἰσαὰκ ἐπίσκοπος 'EAcapyiac εἷπεν: Ὁμολογῶ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι συμφωνίαν ἐν τε 
τῷ Συμβόλῳ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Κυρίλλου, κι τ. A. See 
Mansi, Concilia, tom. IV., col. 1164. 

(268). The Church province of Asia is here meant. Ephesus was its me- 
tropolis. On it see Bingham’s Antig., Book IX., Chapter 3, Section 9. I should 
have mentioned before that this term “576 is used of that Church province often 
in these Acts. 


150 Act I. of Ephesus. 


out of harmony with the holy Fathers who came together in the city 
of the Nicaeans, I myself so believing, assent in accordance with the 
Faith put forth by them. 

Nestorius, Bishop of Sion in the Province of Asia, said: I also 
having believed in accordance with the Exposition made by the holy 
Fathers in Nicaea, and so holding, have found the contents of the 
Epistle of the most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril to be in harmony with 
it. And I also myself assent to that Faith, and to the Exposition 
of the holy Fathers, and I pray that I may pass the rest of my life- 
time in that faith, by the Anointed One’s grace. 


Anderius, Bishop of Cherronesus, a city of the Province of Crete, 
said; ‘The Faith of the holy Fathers who came together in the city of 
the Nicaeans, has been opened to us like very costly myrrh-oil, and has 
sent forth a still greater fragrance, by means of the Epistle of our 
most holy and most God-worshipping Father Cyril, which is of the 
same sound and of the same sentiments with it, and I myself assent 
to that Epistle, and I pray so to believe all my life time. 


Paul, Bishop of the City of Lampa (269), in the Province of Crete, 
said: Inasmuch as I have listened to the Epistle of the most holy 
and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril, and have found it of the same 
sound and of the same sentiments as the Faith set forth by the holy 
Fathers who met in the city of the Nicaeans, I assent to it, and I so 
believe, and I pray that I may continue forever in that (270) Faith. 


Zenobius, Bishop of the City of Gnossus, tn the Province of Crete, 
said; Forasmuch as the Orthodox Faith of the holy Fathers who 
met in the city of the Nicaeans, is clear to all, and it has been made 
plain that the Epistle of the most holy Father and Bishop Cyril is 
of the same sentiments and of the same sound with those things 
which were then rightly set forth as to the Faith, I assent to that 
[Epistle] and approve it, and pray that I may continue in that Faith. 


Macarius, Bishop of the Metelitans (271) in Egypt, said: Because 
the Epistle of our most holy.Archbishop Cyril which has been read, 


(260): 2Or,)Viampe.” 

(270). Or, ‘‘this faith.”’ The Greek and Latin often use 2.25 where our 
idiom requires ¢hat, and so I often follow our idiom to make better English. 

(271). That is, as I understand it, the inhabitants of the city of Metelis in 
Egypt. For Bingham gives MVefelis in the ‘‘[udex of Episcopal Sees” at the 
end of Book IX. of his Antiquities. 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 151 


is in harmony with the Faith put forth through the Holy Spirit, by 
the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea, I assent to that one 
and the same Faith, because its doctrine is not alien to the Faith | 
which has been handed down to the most holy Church of God, by 
the most holy Fathers, but, as I have said before, it agrees with it. 


Lampetius, Bishop of Castum in the Province of Augustamnica, 
said: 1 assent to the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop, our 
Father Cyril, which has been read, because it is in agreement with 
the Synod in Nicaea, and with the Faith set forth by the holy 
Fathers. 


Macedonius, Bishop of Xois (272), satd: In accordance with the 
Faith of the holy Synod, held in Nicaea by the most devout Fathers, 
which has been this day read to us, and moreover in accordance 
with it as strengthened by our most holy Archbishop, who is of the 
same sentiments with it, I also approve it, and I trust that I shall 
adhere to it as long as I live; and I have been so taught to teach. 


Ammon, Bishop of the City of Butus, said: J agree with the 
holy Synod celebrated (273) at Nicaea by the holy Fathers, and 
with the Epistle of our most holy Archbishop Cyril, and I myself am 
co-well pleased to guard it (274) to the last day of my life. 


Ammonius, Bishop of the City of Panephysus, in the Province of 
Augustamnica, said: 1 both believe and abide in that Faith of the 
318 Bishops, and I assent to the Epistle written to Nestorius by the 
most holy Archbishop Cyril because it agrees with the holy Fathers; 
and I so believe, and pray that I may die in that Faith. 


Alypius, Bishop of Sela in the Province of Augustamnica, said : 
I have heard the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God 
(275) Father, Archbishop Cyril, which was written to Nestorius 
the most religious, and that Epistle is in agreement with the 
Faith put forth by the holy and God-inspired (276) Fathers. And 


(572). Or, : “fkoesi;* 

(373); Θὲ “‘made:”’ 

(274). Greek, ταύτην, literally ‘‘this.’’ The reference is to Cyril’s Epistle. 

(275). Θεοφιλεστάτου. Sophocles in his ‘Greek Lexicon of the Roman and 
Byzantine Periods’’ renders Θεοφιλής, beloved of God. But the Latin translation 
sometimes renders it by words signifying ‘‘ God loving.” 


(276). Greek, ϑεοφόρων. 


152 Act I. of Ephesus. 


I also so believe in that Orthodox Faith, and I pray that I may end 
my life in it, and stand in it at the tribunal of the Anointed One. 
(277). 

Perrebius, Bishop of the Thessalian Forests (278), said: Inas- 
much as the Faith put forth in Nicaea by the holy Fathers, is 
unbreakable and unswerving, and because the faith set forth by the 
Epistle of the most holy Bishop Cyril is in harmony with it, I [there- 
fore] like that [Epistle] and assent to it, as all the holy Fathers also 
before us have stated and done. 


Philumenus, Bishop of the City of Cinna in Galatia, said: TWav- 
ing found the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God (279) 
Bishop Cyril to be in agreement with the Exposition of the Faith of 
the 318 holy Bishops at Nicaea, I assent to them, and I believe just 
as the tholy Fathers themselves also have stated, and just as the 
contents of the Epistle of the most holy Bishop Cyril explain. 


Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocurura, said: Because it is one 
and the same Holy Spirit Who taught the Fathers at Nicaea on the 
Faith, and Who taught by the soul and the tongue of the most holy 
and most devout Father and Archbishop Cyril, when he dictated 
(280) that Epistle to correct those things which were not well said 
before the Church by the most God-worshipping Nestorius, and be- 
cause I see that it contains no innovation nor change, therefore I 
admiring the agreement between them, and becoming myself a co- 
voter for the opinion of the Fathers [on it] do assent to the same 
things with the most holy Synod. 


Evoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, said: Ihave 
admired the harmony which exists between the Epistle of our most 
holy and most dear-to-God Father and Archbishop Cyril, which was 
written to the most God-fearing Nestorius for the correction of those 
things which were spoken not rightly, and the Symbol of our most 
holy and most God-fearing Fathers who were assembled at Nicaea 
(281), and seeing nothing in it of innovation or change, I assent 


(277). Greek, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, that is, ‘‘of the Christ.”’ 

(278). The Greek here is, τῶν Θετταλικῶν Σαλτῶν. 

(279). Or, ‘‘most God-loving.”’ 

(280). Greek, ὑπαγορεύσαντος. 

(281). See Mansi’s Concilia, tome IV., col. 1168: Kai τοῦ Συμβόλου τοῦ παρὰ 
τῶν ἁγιοτάτων καὶ θεοσεβεστάτων ἸΠΤατέρων ἡμῶν τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ συναχϑέντων, κ. τ. A. 


The Voting on Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 153 


with all the Synod to it because it is in harmony with the right 
Faith. 

Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus in Thebais, said: ‘The Epistle of 
our most holy Father Cyril, which has been read, is of the same 
tenor, (282) as the things set forth by the Synod in Nicaea and in 
nothing differs from them, as respects the setting straight of the 
Orthodox and the overturning of the heretical dogmas; and I also 
believe and assent. 

Zeno, Bishop of the City of Cyrium in Cyprus, said: Because the 
things defined and decreed by the holy Fathers at Nicaea and those 
written by our most holy Father and Archbishop Cyril are in agree- 
ment, we also assent, and confess the same faith. 


Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra (283), said: We have been 
brought up from the beginning, and from our ancestors, in the 
Canons (284) of those at Nicaea, and we trust that we shall guard 
them until the end; and, moreover, having heard the Epistle of the 
most devout Archbishop Cyril, and having found it to agree with the 
holy Canons, we trust that we shall guard and keep the flocks com- 
mitted to us till the end [in it]. 


Flesychius, Bishop of Parium, said: Although I seem alone 
from my province (285), and have come by request (286) in regard 
to these matters, nevertheless I myself consent to be of the very same 
faith which the most holy and most God-worshipping Fathers, who 
came together in Nicaea, set forth; and the most holy and most 
dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril has strengthened it by his Epistle 
written to the most religious Nestorius. 


(282). Greek, ὁμοδυναμεῖ. 

(283). Margin, Greek, Ἰλλίστρων. Latin text Helistrorum, Latin margin, 
Flelecirensis. 

(284). Greek, τοῖς κανόσι τῶν κατὰ Νίκαιαν. As κανών means ‘‘rule,’’ the ref- 
erence includes not only the rules on discipline but the rules on faith also put 
forth by the First Ecumenical Synod, and indeed all its utterances, Creed, 
Canons, Synodal Epistle and all. See a note above. 

(285). Parium, as the margin here states, was in the Province of Helles- 
pontus. As it was near Constantinople, Nestorius, as its Bishop, might have 
had, as early as this, some power there, as Hefele in his History of the Church 
Councils shows, in effect. See that work, English translation, Volume III., page 
412, ard the references there. See also Wiltsch’s Geography, etc., of the Church. 

(286). Or, ‘‘ by entreaty,’’ or, ‘‘by prayer,’’ or, ‘‘ by wish,” δ εὐχὴν ἐλϑὼν, 
The Latin translation in Coleti, here renders it ‘‘ex voto.” 


154 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Heiladius, Bishop of Adramytium, said: 1 believe the Exposi- 
tion of our Three Hundred and Eighteen most holy and most dear- 
to-God (287) Fathers and the Epistle of the most devout Archbishop 
Cyril, and I will keep and guard that Faith all through. 


Dion, Bishop of the City of Thebae, said: My Faith is that of 
the holy Fathers [who met] at Nicaea, and I profess it ; and I know 
that the most holy Father and fellow-minister, Archbishop Cyril, 
has set forth and spoken in the same sense through his holy Epistle 
written to Nestorius. 


Andrew, Bishop of Hermopolis in the Thebais, said: 1 believe in 
and glorify the Faith of the Orthodox in accordance with the things 
voted on the right and saving faith by the holy Fathers who were 
gathered together in the city of the Nicaeans, that is the Three 
Hundred and Eighteen Bishops, and in accordance with the Epistle 
of our most holy and most devout Archbishop Cyril which has been 
read, and which was sent to the most religious Nestorius, and 
which is in harmony with the things decreed of old by the same 
most holy Bishops who were gathered in the city of the Nicaeans. 


And all the rest of the Bishops who have been mentioned before 
in their own order say the same and so believe, just as the holy 
Fathers also have set forth, and as the Epistle of the most holy 
Archbishop Cyril written to Nestorius the Bishop has declared (288). 


Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, said: It is in order that the 
Epistle of the most religious Nestorius, of which the most religious 
Presbyter Peter at the beginning made mention, be now read ; so 
that we may know whether that Epistle also is in harmony with 
those things which were put forth by the holy Fathers in Nicaea. 


And having been read as follows (289), it was put below as it 
here follows, and its contents are: 


(287). Greek, θεοφιλεστάτων. 
(288). Coleti’s Conctlia, tom. 3, col. 1137, and before. 


(289). The Greek margin reads instead, “And it was read as it ts above, in 
its order.’ But the text seems the preferable reading and shows that in the 
original Acts the Epistle of Nestorius came here in its proper place, and that the 
present arrangement by which it is put in the Preliminary Matter is a later one. 
And the same remark is probably true of every other document read in the 
Synod which is now in the Preliminary Matter. 


Reading of Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 155 

__ τον ee Oe cane eg ne ORC ice NOY A ALND CH ETE 

“Ty the most religious and most dear-to-God, our Fellow Minister 

Cyril, Nestorius wishes joy in the Lord’? (290). 

[Section I. Nestorius brands St. Cyril's Epistle as insulting to hint 
(Nestorius), defers some matters in tt to a jit time, and sets 
out to refute Cyril's explanation of the words of the Nicene 
Creed on the Incarnation, without cause rebukes him for 
superficial knowledge of the meaning of the Symbol, wrongly 
accuses him of making God liable to suffering, and then flatly 
denies the birth of God the Word in flesh, and, of course, His 
Inman also. | 


The insults directed against us in thy admirable (291) Letter, I 
dismiss as worthy of a physicians’ long suffering, (292), and I defer 
the answer to them on account of the matters themselves to a fit 
time. But in regard to what does not permit silence, because it 
would be productive of great danger if silence were preserved, on that, 
as I may be able, not extending my remarks to prolixity, I will 
endeavor to make a brief statement, avoiding at the same time pro- 
ducing disgust by a dark verbosity hard to digest, and I will begin 
from the allwise expressions of thy Love, quoting them word for word. 
What then are the words of the admirable (293) instruction con- 
tained in the Epistle? ‘‘ The holy and great Synod [at Nicaea] says 
that the ‘Sole-Born’ Son Himself, Who, as τέ respects His Divine 
Nature, was born out of the Father, [that is] the ‘ Very God out of 
very God,’ the ‘ Light out of the Light,’ [that is] He through Whom 
the Father has made all things (294), ‘came down, tock on flesh, put 


(290). The Greek heading of this Epistle, given on page 316 of tome 5 of 
the Collectio Regia of the Councils, Paris, A. D. 1644, has, in the matter before 
the Synod, this Epistle with the additional words, “4 Copy of an Epistle of 
Nestorius to the Pope’? [that is, ‘“‘Father’’] “‘ Cyril, which displeased all in the 
Holy Synod.’ In the matter before the Acts in Coleti, Cozc., tom. ΠῚ. col. 872, 
the same Epistle bears the same heading. On the term “Pope: .see Sophocles’ 
Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, under the word πάπας, 


which he explains as follows: ‘‘ Papa, father, a title given to Bishops in general, 
and to those of Alexandria and Rome in particular.’? See the examples there 
given. 


(291). Or, ‘‘wonderful,’’ Greek, θαυμαστῶν. 

(292). ‘The Greek here adds, ‘‘and the rest,” but the words, ‘‘azd the rest”’ 
were probably not in the original make-up of these Aéts. The present arrange- 
ment of the published editions, by which the Epistles and other documents read 
in the Synod, are not given in their own proper places in the Acts but in the 
Forematter, was not the first one, nor is the Forematter the most natural place 
to give them, and therefore I place them in their proper places in these records. 

(293). Or, ‘“‘ wonderful,’’ θαυμαστῆς 

ἴ0 1) Jou 1,9; HMebs1,; 2: 


156 Act Lf. of Ephesus. 


ona man,’ ‘suffered’ [and] ‘vose again.’’’ ‘These are the words 
of thy God-Worshippingness. And thou probably knowest them to 
be thine own. But hear also what we have to say. Hear a 
brotherly advising on behalf of piety, even the advice which the 
great Apostle Paul addressed solemnly before God to his beloved 
Timothy: ‘‘ Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine 
* & > forin doing that thou shalt save both thyself and those that 
hear thee’? (295). But what meaning does this expression, “" Give at- 
tendance,’’ convey to me? ‘This: that thou, superficially reading the 
tradition (296) of those holy men, hast erred through a pardonable 
ignorance, when thou thoughtest that they said that the Word co- 
eternal with the Father is liable to suffering. But examine more accur- 
ately, if it please thee, the words, and thou wilt find that that godly 
choir of the Fathers, have not said that the consubstantial Divinity is 
liable to suffering, NOR THAT THE DIVINITY WHICH IS CO-ETERNAL 
WITH THE FATHER WAS LATELY BORN (297), nor that the Divinity 
which raised up the temple which had been destroyed, Itself arose. But 
if thou wilt listen to a brother’s remedy, I will produce to thee 
the very words of those holy men, and will remove the slander 
against them, and against the Scriptures of God through them 
(298). ‘* We believe”? therefore ‘‘zz’’ our “‘ Lord Jesus Anointed,” 
᾿ς His Son,’ the ‘‘ Sole-Born Son.’ Notice, that placing first as 
foundation-stones the words ‘‘ Lord,’ ‘‘ Jesus,’ ‘‘ Anotnted,’’ (299), 
and ‘‘ Sole-Born’’ (300) and ‘‘Soz’’ the names common to the 
Divinity and the humanity, then they build [upon these names] the 
tradition (301) of the Inman (302), and of the suffering, and of the 


EA NI Aa δι δον nA SP Se ee ΞΞ- - - -. 

(295):, 4. fim. νι, 13; 16- 

(296). Or, “Delivery,” or “ transmission,’ tiv παράδοσιν. ‘The reference is 
to the Nicene Creed. See Cyril’s letter above. ‘‘7he Holy and Great Synod’, 
of course refers to Nicaea and the expressions quoted by Cyril and Nestorius are 
from the Symbol of the 318. Compare Cyril’s quotation and the Greek of that 
Symbol. 

(297). Mark Nestorius’ denial of the truth that God the Word was born out 
of the Virgin. 

(298). Greek, Κἄν μοι τὰς ἀκοὰς εἰς ἀδελφικὴν ἱατρείαν παράσχῆης, αὐτάς σοι τὰς τῶν 
ἁγίων ἐκείνων φωνὰς παραθέμενος, τῆς κατ’ ἐκείνων ἀπαλλάξω συκοφαντίας, καὶ τῆς κατὰ τῶν 
θείων γραφῶν, δὶ ἐκείνων. ‘This language is noteworthy as showing that even Nes- 
torius deemed that not only the question of the sense of the Nicaean Creed but 
also of the Scriptures was involved. 

(299). Greek, Χριστός. 

(300). Greek, καὶ Μονογενής. 

(301). Greek, τότε τὴν τῆς ἐνανϑρωπήσεως, καὶ τοῦ πάϑους, καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως 
ἐποικοδομοῦσι παράδοσιν. 


(302). See the note last above. 


Reading of Nestorius’ Epistie to Cyril. 157 


ee SS ---ς-ς---ο--- --ο-------σσοσΘο ------ 


resurrection, in order that, certain significant names being set forth 
as common to both Natures, neither those qualities which belong to 
the Sonship and the Lordship may be separated, nor that those which 
belong to the Natures, may be brought into the danger of disappear- 
ing by being confounded in the oneness of the Sonship. For in 
respect to that, Paul himself had become their Instructor, who mak- 
ing mention of the divine Inman, (303) [that is the putting on of a 
man by God the Word], and being about to add those things which 
belong to the suffering, first laying down the term © Anointed,’ the 
common appellation (as I have just said), of the Two Natures, he 
continues his discourse with reference to both Natures. For what 
says he? ‘‘ Let that mind be in you which was also in Anointed Jesus: 
who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God’? (304). But, lest I may be too particular, I will omit the rest 
as far as tothe words: ‘‘ He became obedient to the extent of death 
(305), even the death of the cross’ (306). But when he was about to 
make mention of that death, lest any one should thence infer that 
God the Word is capable of suffering, he uses the term “4 nointed’’ 
(307) as an appellation expressive of the Non-Suffering Substance, 
‘and of the suffering substance, in but one Person. So that with 

out any danger, the Anointed might be called incapable of suffering 
and capable of suffering: incapable of suffering that is in his 
Divinity, but capable of suffering in the nature of His body. But 
while I can say much concerning that, and especially concerning 
the fact that THOSE HOLY FATHERS MAKE MENTION OF NO BIRTH 
in the [Christian] Economy, but only of the being in a man (308), I 
perceive that my promise, in the beginning, of brevity, bridles the 
course of my statement and moves me toward the second head of 
thy Love. 


earned Pete μ᾿ ey Re ΞΟ ΣΙ Σ Ἐν ἘΞ ΈΞΞΞΞ ἢ 

(303). Greek, τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τῆς θείας. I have coined a term to express 
ἐνανθρωπήσεως. 

(204). Philip? π΄ 5. 6. 

(305). In the Common Version translated “‘unto death.”’ 

(306). Philip. i1., 8. 

(307). Greek, Χριστός. 

(308). Greek, πολλὰ λέγειν περὶ τούτου δυνάμενος καὶ πρότερόν γε τὸ μηδὲ γεννήσεως 
ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκονομίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοὺς ἁγίους ἐκείνους μνημονεῦσαι πατέρας, ete. 

We must well remember in judging of this language that both St. Cyril and 
Nestorius used the term ἐνανθρώπησις, that is, Zuman, that is, being in a Man, 
but in widely different senses; Cyril meaning by it that the actual Substance of 
God the Word put on a Man in Mary’s womb and is in him now; whereas Nesto- 
rius denied all that and admitted only that God the Word was in his mere human 
Christ by His Spirit only as He was in the prophets and the apostles, so that his 
Christ was merely an inspired Man. That is his sense of “the being in a Man” 
above. 


158 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[Section II. Nestorius again charges Cyril with making God the 
Word liable to suffering, notwithstanding Cyril’s disclaimer of 
that heresy tn his Letter, and again denies the Incarnation, the 
soul of the Christian Religion. | 


On this second head I was praising thy distinguishing between 
the Natures, in accordance with the true doctrine of the humanity and 
of the Divinity, and of thy connecting of those in One Person (309) ; 
and because that thou hast affirmed that God the Word did not need 
a second birth, [that is that] out of a woman (310) and because thou 
hast confessed that it is impossible for the Divinity to suffer. For 
such statements are truly orthodox, and opposed to the wicked 
opinions of all the heresies concerning the Lord’s Natures (311). 

But whether indeed, the remaining statements introduce some 
hidden wisdom incomprehensible to the ears of those who read them 
or not, it is the office of thy Exactness to know. But, to me at 
least, they seemed to overturn the first part of thy statement. For . 
He whom in the first part [of thy Letter], thy Exa¢tness proclaimed 
to be incapable of suffering, and as not admitting of a second birth 
(312) thy Exactness has introduced again as capable of suffering 


Surely after such language as this, both Cyril and the Universal Church 
were justified in believing that Nestorius denied the actual birth of the Sub- 
stance of the Eternal Word out of the Virgin; and it is plain that they were 
right in so thinking and a@ting. And let us remember that just above Cyril had 
stated that the “Very God out of Very God, took flesh and put on a Man.”’ And 
Nestorius in reply pointedly denies it. The notion therefore of some later 
writers that that heresiarch was innocent, and that the Universal Church, guided 
by the Holy Ghost, according to Christ’s promise, was wrong, is outrageously 
and inexcusably unjust. Nestorius followed in this heresy his teachers, Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia aud Diodore of Tarsus. On the word οἰκονομίας, Sophocles 
in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, says that it is ‘‘ap- 
plied to the Incarnation and the concomitants thereof.’ It literally means 
“management, dispensation,’’ but is used as Sophocles says above in Christian 
Greek. 

(309). The Greek is as follows: Ἔν ὦ καὶ τὴν τῶν φύσεων ἐπήνουν διαίρεσιν κατὰ 
τὸν τῆς ἀνϑρωπότητος καὶ Θεότητος λόγον, καὶ τὴν τούτων εἰς ἑνὸς προσώπου συνάφειαν. 

See Mansi, Cozc., tom. IV., col. 893. We must remember that Nestorius by 
συνάφειαν means not the actual dwelling of the Substance of God the Word in 
His Humanity, but only such a conjun¢tion as there is between God the Word 
and a mere inspired man. 

(310). Here Nestorius squints towards his denial of the birth of God the 
Word out of the Virgin, which he utters above, and fully as plainly below. 


(311). Here, in effect, that is, by necessary implication, Nestorius brands 
the Orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation as a heresy. 


(312). Καὶ δευτέρας γεννήσεως adextov, Here certainly, beyond all cavil, Nes- 


Reading of Nestorius’ Lpistle to Cyril. 159) 


(313) and as newly created (314), I know not how, as if the things 
which belong tothe [divine] Nature of God the Word were destroyed 
by the joining of the temple [to It], or as though thou thinkest that 
it is only of some small account to men that the temple sinless and 
inseparable from the divine Nature, underwent both birth and death 
for sinners, or as though the voice of the Lord ought not to be 
believed when he cries to the Jews: ‘‘ Destroy this temple, and in 
three days [ will raise it up (315). He said not, Destroy my 
Divinity, and in three days tt shall δὲ raised up (316). 

But, again, while wishing here also to extend my remarks, 1 am 
checked by the remembrance of my promise. Therefore I must 
speak but briefly. 


[Section III. Nestorius again denies that God the Word was born 
out of Mary, and so of course denies the Incarnation also. He 
adduces texts which prove what no Orthodox man denies, that 
Christ’ s humanity was born out of her, but they do not milt- 
tate at all against the truth that God the Word also was, as ts 
clear from John 7., 14, ‘‘ The Word was made flesh,” that ts 
came in flesh ; and the statement in Matt. t., 23, that He who 
was born out of Mary was ‘‘ Emmanuel, which being translated 
ἧς, Gop with τες," that ts, of course, GOD THE WORD with 
us, and from the statement in 1 Timothy iii., 16, ‘‘ God was 
manifested in flesh.’ Those texts St. Cyril uses to prove that 
God the Word was incarnate in Mary and was born out of her. 
See the Indexes to Scripture in S. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
Incarnation Against Nestorius, translated by P. E. Pusey, etc. 


torius denies the second birth of the Word, that is that out of the Virgin. What 
excuse after this clear language can there be for his apologists who vilify the 
Third Synod in order to glorify that wretched heretic! Of course he errs in 
stating that Cyril denied that second birth. 

(313). Nestorius evidently mistook the dodtrine of Economic Appropriation 
for Theopaschitism. 

(314). It is thus that Nestorius misrepresents Cyril’s doctrine of the birth of 
God the Word in flesh. 

(ars)... John; τ, τὸ: 

(316). Here while again implying his own denial of the actual birth out of 
Mary of God the Word’s Substance in the Man put on, Nestorius impugns 
Cyril’s doctrine of the Economic Appropriation of the sufferings of that man to 
God the Word. St. Athanasius, quoted with approval by St. Cyrilon page 75 
above, explains that doftrine as intended to guard against Man-Service. That 
Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity Cyril denounces as contrary to Isaiah 
xlii., 8, and to Matt. iv., 10, and to Luke iv., 8. I will, God willing, treat of 
that doctrine in a separate Dissertation. 


160 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Besides Nestorius does not hesitate to accept the consequence of 
his view that Christ ts a mere Man, that is Man-Worship with 
which St. Cyril often charges him. See note 183 tn this work 
above and Cyril’s works passim. 


Furthermore, Nestorius does not seem to see, or if he does see, 
does not quail at the sequence of his denial of the Incarnation, 
and his affirmation of Man-Worship, that ts, he does not see 
that by worshipping the mere created humanity of Christ, he ts 
making, what St. Cyril charges him with doing, a ‘‘new God”’ 
in addition to the Holy Trinity, that ts to say Nestorius wor- 
shipped a Tetrad instead of a Trinity only, and his Tetrad was 
composed of the Three Divine Persons, the Father, the co-eternal 
and consubstantial Word, and the co-eternal and consubstautial 
Spirit, and besides a mere creature contrary, as St. Cyril teaches, 
to Matt. iv., ro; Isaiah xlit., 8; and the Greek Septuagint of 
Psalm lxxx., 9 (Psalm lexxi., 9, in the King James Version). 


Next Nestorius advances his heresy of a mere moral and sptrit- 
ual union between God the Word and his (Nestorius) mere 
human Christ born of Mary, as opposed to the Orthodox docirine 
of the Substance Union, that is, the doctrine that God the Wora’s 
Divine Substance put on that Man in Mary's womb, and was 
born out of her in him, and has ever since indwelt that Man by 
the aétual Substance of His Divinity. Nestorius’ heresy made 
that man to be dwelt in by Christ's Holy Spirit only as the 
prophets, the apostles, and other inspired men were. 


Nestorius then denies St. Cyril’ s doctrine of Economic A pbpro- 
priation, which he unjustly brands as Apollinarianism and 
Arianism, a thing that was inexcusable forasmuch as St. Cyril 
guards it most clearly against those heresies in the very Epistle 
which he here pretends toanswer. Then he insists that the doc- 
trine results in ‘‘lies’’ and will become the cause of the ‘‘ Just con- 
demnation”’ of St. Cyril and the Orthodox “‘ as slanderers.”’ 


Next he contends that his heresies, which Cyril shows to be de- 
nial of the Incarnation, Man Worship, and Tetradism, are the 
“ traditions of the holy Fathers,’’ by whom he seems to mean his 
teachers, Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the 
heresiarchs, and he asserts that his errors are “‘ the announce- 
ments of the Scriptures of God,’ and lastly, seemingly with 


Reading of Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 161 


implied arrogance and contempt, he commends St. Cyril to the study of 
the Scriptures, as though he knew them not because he did not agreé 
with the aforesaid heresies of Nestorius]. 


Everywhere the Scripture of God, when it makes mention of 
the Lord’s Incarnation, transmits to us @ ézrth and a suffering zot of 
the Divinity, but of the humanity of the Anointed One, so that the 
holy Virgin is to be called by the more accurate appellation ‘‘ Bringer 
forth of the Anointed One,’’ not ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God’’ (317). 
Hear then the Gospels crying aloud the following teachings: ‘‘ Zhe 
book,’’ it says, ‘‘ of the birth of Jesus Anointed (318), the Son of David, 
the Son of Abraham’’ (319). But it is evident that God the Word was 
not a Son of David. Receive also another testimony, if it please 
thee: ‘‘ And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, out of whom was 
born Jesus, who ts called Anointed’’ (320). Again, consider another 
utterance which thus protests to us: ‘‘T7he birth of Jesus Anointed 
was on this wise: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph 

* * 3 she was, found with child of the Holy Ghost’’ (321). 
But who believes the Divinity of the Sole-Born to be a creature of 
the Spirit? And what should be said to this passage: ‘‘7he mother 
of Jesus was there’’ (322); and this again; ‘‘W2th Mary the mother of 
Jesus’’ (323); and this; ‘‘ That which ἐς conceived in her ts of the Holy 
Ghost’’ (324); and this; ‘‘Take the young child and his mother, and 
free into Egypt’’ (325); and this; ‘‘ Concerning his Son * * * 
who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh’’ (326); and 
this again regarding His suffering; ‘‘ God sending His own Son in 
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh’’ 


(317). The Greek asin column 55 of tome 77 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, 
reads: Πανταχοῦ τῆς ϑείας Τραφῆς, ἡνίκα av μνήμην τῆς Δεσποτικῆς οἰκονομίας ποιῆται, 
γέννησις ἡμῖν καὶ πάϑος οὐ τῆς ϑεότητος, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀνϑρωπότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδίδοται" 
ὡς καλεῖσϑαι κατὰ ἀκριβεστέραν προσηγορίαν τὴν ἁγίαν παρϑένον Χριστοτόκον, οὐ Οεοτόκον. 

Here again Nestorius plainly denies the birth of the Divinity of the Word 
out of the Virgin. This is the third plain denial of that important truth so far 
in this Epistle. And besides he implies that denial in one other place above as 
mentioned in notes there. 

(318). Χριστός is here translated for the better understanding of the ques- 
tions involved. 

(rg). Mate 1, τ 

(320); “Matt. 1.,°%6. 

(421); “Matt; 18; 

(423)... John 11.,:1 

(323). Adctsi., 1 

(324). Matt. i., 20 

(325)... Matt, i1:, 13. 

(326). Rom.i., 3. 


162 Act I. of Ephesus. 


(327); and again; ‘‘ Anointed died for our sins’ (328); and; ‘‘ An- 
ointed hath suffered * * * in the flesh”’ (329); and; ‘‘Thzs ἐδ" 
(not my Divinity, but), ‘‘y body which ts broken for you for the re- 
mission of sins’’ (330). And there are countless other expressions 
which testify to the human race that they should not think that the 
Divinity of the Son is a new thing (331), nor that it is susceptible of 
bodily suffering, but that the flesh, which is joined to the Nature of 
the Divinity, is. Whence also the Anointed One names David him- 


(327). | Reut val, 3: 

(328)h) 1 ΟΣ τ 3. 

(ΟΠ dey Peter tv., 1: 

(330). I. Cor. xi., 24. Compare Luke xxii., 19. We shall see further on 
in this Act that the question of the Real Presence of the Divinity of God the 
Word in the Eucharist comes up again as does also the question of the actual 
eating of a Man’s flesh there. In a Dissertation on that subject I show from 
Cyril’s own statements that he taught that the Divinity of the Word is not on 
the Holy Table in the rite, and that it is not eaten there, and that Nestorius agreed 
with him on the last point, and probably on the former; but that they differed 
to some extent as to what sort of a body is eaten there, Cyril asserting that it is. 
not a Man’s body but the body of God the Word, whereas Nestorius held a view 
on that matter which St. Cyril calls ἀνθρωποφαγία, that is, Man-Eating, that is, 
Cannibalism. 

On those Matters see St. Cyril’s Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemtes 
of Nestorius, Book IV., Setions 4, 5 and 6 (Pusey’s translation, pages 140-154); 
and see also Nestorius, as quoted below in this Act among the passages adduced 
to prove him a heretic and to demand his deposition, and as a fact producing it; 
and see also Eutherius of Tyana on page 122in this volume, in the note. A 
passage of Theodoret the Nestorian shows that he worshipped the bread and 
wine of the Eucharist after consecration as in one sense the actual flesh and 
blood of Christ, though he admits that the bread and wine remain in their 
former substance and shape and appearance. See his Dialogue II., /uconfusus, 
page 123 in Schulze’s edition. As Cyril holds that the Divine Substance of God 
the Word is not in the Eucharist, and as he denies that the separate humanity of 
Christ can be worshipped, therefore, according to him, there is nothing in the 
Lord’s Supper to be worshipped. ‘That is the fact, whatever sense he may take 
Christ’s assertion in that the bread is His body and the wine His blood. 

The Third Council followed Cyril on the Eucharist as they did on the Incar- 
nation and against Man-Service. Of this whole theme, I will treat more fully 
when I come, God willing, to publish a Dissertation on the controversy between 
Cyril and Nestorius on the Eucharist, that is, as Eucharist (Evyapiotia) means, 
the Thanksgiving. 

(331). That is, that God the Word was not lately born out of the Virgin’s. 
womb as Cyril says. This is another proof that Nestorius denied that funda- 
mental tenet of the Scriptures and of Orthodoxy. Indeed it is the fifth time 
that he makes that denial in this Epistie so far. 


Reading of Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 163 


self Lord and Son. For, ‘‘What’’ says he, ‘‘ think ye of the A nointed 
One? Whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 
Jesus answered and said unto them, How then doth David in Spirit call 
Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right 
hand 2 (332) So that He is certainly the Son of David in respect 
to the flesh, but in respect to the Divinity He is Lord. It is a thing 
right therefore and worthy of the Gospel transmissions to confess 
that the body is the temple of the Divinity of the Son, and a temple 
united by a certain lofty and divine conjunction (333), so that the 
Nature of the Divinity appropriates [to Itself] the things of that 
body (334); but to charge therefore upon that expression, “‘ appro- 
priation,”’ the properties also of the flesh conjoined, I mean birth 


(332). I have followed the quotation as it stands in Nestorius. It is from 
Matt. xxii., 42-44. 

(333). It will be noticed that συνάφειαν, conjunciion, or merely conneciion, 
as opposed to Cyril’s and the Church’s Personal Union, is the term preferred by 
Nestorius to express his views. For the Greek see Mansi, Cozc., tome IV., col. 
896. ‘The Personal Union and the Substance Union are the same thing. 

(334). The Greek, as in Coleti, Conc., tome IIL., col. 876, 877, is as follows: 
Εἶναι μὲν οὖν τῆς [margin, Χριστοῦ] Yiov Θεότητος τὸ σῶμα ναὸν, καὶ ναὸν κατ᾽ ἄκραν τινὰ 
καὶ θείαν ἡνωμένον συνάφειαν [margin, οἰκειοῦσϑαι dé] ὡς οἰκειοῦσϑαι τὰ τούτου τὴν τῆς 
Θεότητος φύσιν ὁμολογεῖσϑαι, καλὸν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν παραδόσεων ἄξιον" τὸ δὲ δὴ τῷ τῆς 
οἰκειότητος προστρίβειν ὀνόματι καὶ τὰς τῆς συνημμένης σαρκὸς ἰδιότητας, γέννησιν λέγω, καὶ 
πάθος, καὶ νέκρωσιν, ἢ πλανωμένης ἐστὶν ἀληϑῶς Ka? “Ἑλληνας, ἀδελφὲ, διανοίας, ἢ τὰ τοῦ 
φρενοβλαβοῦς ᾿Απολιναρίου, καὶ ’Apeiov, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων νοσοῦσης αἱρέσεων, μᾶλλον δὲ, ὅτε 
κἀκείνων βαρύτερον, etc. 

If we take ὡς as it stands, and render as the Jesuit translator Theodore Pel- 
tanus has (see Coleti, Cozc., tome III., col. 991, note 1), in effect, ‘‘So as to 
confess that the nature of the Divinity appropriated [to Itself] the properties of 
that body’ [or, ‘‘of that temple’’], we make Nestorius agree with Cyril so far 
as to admit that God the Word appropriates to some extent the things of His 
humanity; but in the next clause Nestorius modifies his idea of appropriation 
by God the Word of ‘‘the things of that body,”’ so far as to deny any appropri- 
ation of birth, suffering and death to Him. 

But we may take the passage in accordance with Nestorius’ constant doc- 
trinal teaching by translating the clause in question as follows: 

“So that the things of the body [or ‘of the temple’] ave appropriated 
for, ‘made their own’] the nature of the Divinity.’ For Nestorius did give 
what is prerogative to the Divine nature, worship, by bowing, for instance, to 
the body put on by the Word, not that the body is worshippable of itself, but 
because of God the Word, as he, in substance, confesses in the VIIIth of his 
XII. Anathemas, and in a passage or passages quoted from him by Cyril on pages 
81 to go above, note. The chief objection to this translation is that it does 
not so well agree with the sentence next following. 

Or we may suppose that a transcriber or an editor has mistaken the ligature 
for οὐκ for the ligature for ὡς, which are not so very unlike, and has mistakenly 


164 Act I. of Ephesus. 


(335), and suffering, and death, belongs truly, brother, to the erro- 
neous opinions of the heathen, or the errors of Apollinaris who was 
smitten in mind, and of Arius, and of a mind sick with the other 
heresies, or rather with whatever is worse than those (336). For it 
will necessarily happen that such will be hurried away by the term 
‘‘ appropriation,’’ and on account of that ‘‘appropriation’’ they will 
make God the Word a partaker in sucking the breast, and a sharer 
in gradual growth and of the fear at the time of the suffering, and 
one who needed angelic aid (337). And I will be silent as to cir- 
cumcision, and sacrifice, and sweatings, and hunger, and thirst; 
which things, inasmuch as they happened to His flesh for our sake 
are to be joined together to be worshipped (338). But these state- 
ments concerning the Divinity will be received as lies and will also 
become the cause of our just condemnation as slanderers. ‘These 
are the traditions (339) of the holy Fathers. ‘These are the an- 


given the latter. I have translated according to the first of those three views of 
this clause. 

It must be remembered that Nestorius’ idea of appropriating the things of 
the body by God the Word does not include a real Incarnation, a real dwelling 
of the Eternal Substance of God the Word in that human body, but only an 
indwelling of it by His Holy Spirit as He indwelt the Prophets by It. 

(335). Here, for the sixth time in this short letter, Nestorius denies that 
the Word was born out of the Virgin. He certainly did not hold the Personal 
Union, that is, the Substance Union, of the Word with a man in the womb of 
the Virgin; but held to a more ve/ative indwelling in that man by His Holy 
Spirit, as God dwelt in the Prophets. 

(336). See the note before the last above for the Greek. 

(337). Luke xxii., 43. 

(338). Greek, προσκυνητῶς συναπτόμενα. ‘The margin reads προσκυνητὰ προσαπ 
τόμενα. See Mansi, Cozc., tome IV., col. 897. Another reading in tome 77 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, columns 55, 56 is, πρόσκειται προσαπτόμενα. We see 
here how Nestorius, the Man-Server (ὁ ἀνϑρωπολάτρης), as the ancients called him, 
charges that St. Cyril and the Orthodox who did not hold to his Man-Worship, 
must, by their doctrine of Economic Appropriation, accept that error, though 
Cyril’s letter with its explanations and teachings should have convinced him 
that nothing in their belief involved that heresy, but that on the contrary they 
refused all Man-Worship of his kind and of the Co-substancer kind. 

(339). Greek, ai * * παραδόσεις. He means the written statements on 
belief transmitted from the Apostolic age and from the ages after it to his, not 
mere lying legends which are wrongly called Church traditions by some ignor- 
ant Romanists and others. Passages are quoted below from such writers as a 
basis of traditioned, that is, transmitted faith on the points involved in the con- 
troversy between St. Cyril and Nestorius. And in accordance with such ¢/rad?- 
tions, that is, as traditions mean, transmissions, that is, deliverances, the Holy- 
Ghost-led Council condemned Nestorius’ denial of the Incarnation and his 
Man-Worship. 


Reading of Nestorius Epistle to Cyril, 165 


nouncements of the Scriptures of God. So a certain one theologizes 
concerning both what relates to the divine love towards man, and 
what relates to His absolute sway, as follows: ‘‘ Meditate upon these 
things, give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear for 
all, and to all’’ (340); so says Paul. 


[SEcTION IV. Westorius thanks Cyril for thoughtfulness regarding 
divine things and for his carefulness regarding his (Nestorius?) 
affairs, but tells him that he (Cyril) had been deceived by clerics 
of his own (Cyril’s) disposition of mind who had been deposed by 
a Synod for holding the opinions of the Manicheans. 7έ ts thus 
that Nestorius slanders those of his Orthodox clerics whom he had 
deposed for their opposition to his errors and heresies. Then he 
boasts that the affairs of his Church and those of the Empire were 
prospering, and that all heresies were waning, intimates that if 
Cyril wished to contend with him it would be vain for him to do 
so, and ends with the usual salutations. | 


But in exercising care for those who are made to stumble thou 
doest well, and [I render] thanks to thy soul which is so thoughtful 
of divine things, and so careful of our affairs. But know that thou 
thyself wast led astray by the clerics who are probably of thy dispo- 
sition of mind, who were deposed by the Holy Synod here for hoid- 
ing the opinions of the Manicheans. For the affairs of the Church 
so advance every day, and the affairs of the people, in so great an 
increase, which is owing to the grace of God, are so blest, that those 
who see the multitudes are moved to cry out in the words of the 
prophet: ‘‘ Zhe earth has been filled with the knowledge of the Lord as 
the waters cover the seas’’ (341). And the affairs of the Emperors 
who have been enlightened by the do¢trine are in unwonted joyous- 
ness (342). And to sum up briefly, any one may daily find that the 
following passage is fulfilled among us concerning all the God-fight- 
ing heresies and the Orthodoxy of the Church, ‘‘7he house of Saul 
waxed weaker and weaker, and the house of David waxed stronger and 
stronger’ (343). ‘These are counsels from us as brethren to a brother 
(344). But if it seem good to any one to be contentious, Paul will 
cry out, even through us, tosuchaone. ‘We have no such custom, 


feAp).. A> Tim. 1ν 5. 35: 

(341). Isaiah xi.,9. Another reading of the Greek agrees in sense with 
our Common Version. 

(342). Or, according to another reading, ‘dud the affairs of the Emperors 
are in exceeding joyousness, because the doctrine has been made clear.” 

5} Tl Sanis iii, 1; j 

(344). Or, ‘‘¢o brethren,’ according to another reading. 


166 Act I. of Ephesus. 


neither the churches of God’’ (345). 1 and those with me most cordi- 
ally salute all the brotherhood who are with thee. May you con- 
tinue strong, and continue to pray earnestly for us, O brother, by 
me in all respects most esteemed, and to God most dear’’ (346). 


And after the Epistle was read Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said: 
What seems good to this Holy and Great Synod (347) concerning 
the Epistle just read? Does this seem to be in harmony with the 
Faith defined in the Holy Synod of the holy Fathers assembled afore- 
time in the city of the Nicaeans, or not? 


Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: It is by no means in har- 
mony with the pious Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who met in 
Nicaea. And I anathematize those who thus believe, for all these 
things are alien to the Orthodox Faith, 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: 'The contents of the Epistle 
read taken together, are, in all respects (348), hostile to and alto- 
gether foreign to the Faith set forth in Nicaea by the most holy 
Fathers; and we judge those who so believe to be aliens from the 
right faith. 

firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said: Nestorius has 
put a semblance of piety into the beginning of his Epistle, but in 
the onward movement of his argument, he has in no way been able 
to screen his naked purpose, for he has laid aside the vail over it, so 
that we can see that it is not in harmony with the Faith of the Three 
Hundred and Eighteen holy Fathers; and moreover 22 zs hostile (349) 
also to the Epistle of the most devout (350) Archbishop Cyril (351). 


(345) 08) Ts COrs, sch. τό. 

(346). For the Greek of this Epistle see Mansi, Cozc., tome IV., col. 892; 
and Hardouin, Cozc., tome I., col. 1277; and tome LXXVII., of Migne’s Patro- 
logia Graeca, columns 49-57; and Coleti, Comc., tome III., col. 872-877. It 
contains only a little over three columns of Greek in Coleti. 

(347). Or, ‘‘ What is the pleasure of this holy,”’ etc., as above. 

(348). Or, ‘‘entirely.”? 

(349). Or, ““contrary.”’ 

(350). ‘*Most devout,”’ τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου, is in the Collectio Regia of the Coun- 
cils here, tome V. (Paris, 1644), page 482, but is lacking in Coleti in this place. 

(351). It will be noticed that Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea, in the words z¢al- 
tcized above, states that the Epistle of Nestorius zs hostile * * * “to the 
Epistle of the most devout Archbishop Cyril.’ We makes the Epistle of Cyril 
an authoritative document. For it had just become authoritative by being 
sealed by the imprimatur of this very Council. It possesses then the seal of the 


The Voting on Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 167 

Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, said: It is easy for all to see at 
once the opposition of the Epistle of the most religious Nestorius; 
for it is not only not in harmony with the Faith of the holy Fathers 
who met in Nicaea, nor with the Epistle of the most dear-to-God 
and most holy Archbishop Cyril, but it does not even agree with 
itself. 

Iconius, Bishop of Gortyna, said: "The Epistle now read of the 
most religious Nestorius agrees in no respect with the Exposition of 
the holy Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea, nor, moreover, with 
the Epistle of our most holy Father and Bishop Cyril. Wherefore, 
I reject (352) that [Epistle of Nestorius], and I anathematize those 
who so believe; and I assent to the Exposition of the holy Fathers 
who met in Nicaea, and to the Epistle of the most holy Father and 
Archbishop, Cyril. 

Hellanicus, Bishop of Rhodes, said: 1 have even already stated 
that I follow the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Three 
Hundred and Eighteen holy Fathers, who assembled in the city of 


same kind of an authority as an explanation of the Symbol, that is Creed, of 
the Three Hundred and Eighteen as that Symbol does itself, that is, the seal of 
an Orthodox Ecumenical Council. They must both therefore remain valid for- 
ever, the Creed as a Creed, the Explanation as an Explanation of it. As to the 
words which compose them there is this difference: All the words of the Nicene 
Creed, with very few exceptions, are those of Scripture, that is, nearly all the 
words of the Symboi are taken from Scripture; while, as might naturally be 
expected in an Explanation, the Letter of Cyril does not so closely limit itself 
to use no other than the words of Holy Writ, for it deals not only with dogma, 
but also with the circumstances of the controversy, and covers much more 
ground than the Creed, to make the Scriptural terms of the Creed more clear. 
In other words, the aim in both is to express Scriptural ideas. And in the Creed 
the idea is couched nearly always in the very words of Scripture. But this 
course regarding the words would not be necessary in an explanation. For 
common sense would teach us that in explaining the words of Scripture we can 
not be tied up to explain one Scriptural word by another Scriptural word, for 
this would, in some cases, take from us a rich means of elucidating the sacred 
text. And any man can see that it would be unjust to Cyril and to the Univer- 
sal Church, which has adopted his Explanation in the Epistle foregoing of the 
Symbol of the Three Hundred and Eighteen as her own, to tie up that Explan- 
ation to quote set passages of Scripture without connectives or elucidation 
when we do not require this of the preacher or the commentator, the work of 
both of whom is in great part that of exposition, that is explanation, as was 
that of Cyril. 
(352). Or, ‘‘denounce,’’ ἀποτασσόμενος. 


168 Act I. of Ephesus. 
the Nicaeans. And I confess the holy virgin Mary to be Bringer 
Forth of God (353), and anathema be he who does not so believe. 


Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, said: 'The Epistle of the most relig- 
ious Bishop Nestorius read to us has shown that he was troubled by 
a no means senseless fear about coming into this Holy and Great 
Synod. For it was fitting that he, who was reproved by his con- 
science, and had put a false sense on the Scriptures of God, and had 
endeavored to shake the Definitions of the holy Fathers, should be 
hampered by such a fear as to wall his house in by a multitude of 
soldiers (354). For his Epistle, which has been read, has most 
clearly shown that he has taken away the expressions concerning 
the Sole-Born Son of God (355) in the Faith (356) of the Three 
Hundred and Kighteen holy Fathers and God-inspired Bishops, by 
attributing those relating to the saving Economy of the Incarnation 
to the flesh [of Christ] alone, and saying that God the Word’s mere 
temple [alone], underwent both birth and death. And he falsely 
pretends also that the Scripture teaches that the birth and the suffer- 
ing pertain not to the Divinity but to the humanity (3 57)... adie 


(353). Θεοτόκον. 

(354). ‘This is an allusion to the manner in which Nestorius received the 
Bishops who had been sent by the Synod to summon him to appear before it. 

(355). ‘‘Zhe Sole-Born Son of God” means, as the Nicene Creed explains 
it, God the Word. For it reads, ‘“And we believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole-Born, that is, out of the Substance of 
the Father.” 

God has many adopted sons of human substance, like us for instance who. 
are of his flock, for we have been born to Him ‘‘out of Water and the Spirit” 
(ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, John iii., 5), but He has only One Son, the co-eternal and 
consubstantiai Word who was born out of His Substance. And that is what the 
Fathers of Nicaea meant in that expression. And Cyril maintains that the 
“ suffered” of that Creed pertains Economically only to Him, as Acacius of 
Melitine well says above. On Economic Appropriation see note 173, pages 74, 
75, 76 above, and note 182, page 79, and the text referred to by those notes. " 

(356). That is, the Nicene Creed. 

(357). Here Acacius shows that Nestorius denied in his Epistle the birth of 
God the Word out of the Virgin, and consequently His Inflesh and His Inman. 
In ascribing to God the Word the death of the Man put on by Him, we must 
remember that he does so Economically only in accordance with the doctrine of 
Economic Appropriation, for he shows in the last part of the above passage that 
neither he nor St. Cyril attributed either suffering or death to God the Word in 
any other than an Economic sense. In note 173, pages 74-76, Athanasius 
and Cyril show that it was done to avoid worshipping a mere Man. See there. 


The Voting on Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 169 


παν ees ee oe ee ee Oe Σ ἐλ ξέ 
slanders also the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
Bishop Cyril by asserting that it calls God passible, which neither 
he himself (358) nor any other of those who think piously has either 
thought of saying or dared to say. And through all that he (359) 
has put forth he has shown that though he confesses the union of 
God with flesh zz mere name only, nevertheless zz fact he has in every 
way denied it (360). And, moreover, he has convicted himself of 
teaching a strange dodtrine by asserting that the doctrines have in 
the present day been made clear by himself (361), all of which doc- 
trines being foreign to the truth, and containing much impiety, I 
reject them, and make myself an alien from the communion of those 
who say such things. 

Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, said: The Epistle which has been 
read is full not only of slander but also of blasphemy; wherefore it is 
all opposed to the Faith put forth by the Three Hundred and High- 
teen holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea. 

Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, said: We have found that the 
Epistle of the most religious Nestorius agrees in no respect with the 
Exposition of the holy Fathers, the holy and God-inspired Bishops, 


(358). St. Cyril of Alexandria. 

(359). Nestorius. 

(360). See note last above. 

(361). That is, as I understand it, Nestorius taught that the correct doc- 
trines had never been made clear before himself, but that he succeeded in the 
effort. This would imply that the explanations by which he made the doctrines 
clear were novel. And this would make against him. As a matter of historical 
fact Nestorianism could boast no higher antiquity than Diodore who was made 
Bishop of Tarsus about A. D. 379, and Theodore, his pupil, who was made 
Bishop of Mopsuestia A. D. 392, and died A. D. 428. See the articles ‘‘ Dio- 
dorus (3)? and ‘‘ Theodorus of Mopsuestia”’ in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of 
Christian Biography. But probably the writings of Diodore and Theodore were 
not much known outside of the patriarchate of Antioch when Acacius said the 
above. When St. Cyril learned of the poison in them he wrote against them. 
Nestorius’ assertion that the do@trines had been made clear in his day by him- 
self may have been meant by him in the sense that the heresies of Diodore and 
Theodore on the Incarnation, and in worshipping a mere human Christ, were 
first set forth by himself outside of the patriarchate of Antioch, where he had 
been reared and where he had learned them. 

Such pretension of superior knowledge has been common to many creature- 
worshipping heretics. St. Alexander of Alexandria shows that the Arian pa- 
ganizers, for example, claimed a new and superior knowledge better than that 
of the ancients. See page 167, vol. I. of Vicaea in this series. 


170 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


who were gathered in Nicaea. Wherefore we assent to their Expo- 
sition; and, on the other hand, we decide that the Epistle of Nesto- 
rius is foreign to the right faith, and we judge those who hold to its 
teachings to be aliens from the faith of Christians. 


Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, said: 1 do not delay to stop even 
my ears at (362) the blasphemy which is written in the Epistle; and 
I became almost like stone from faintness so that I could not utter a 
word, because I was held fast by so great a faintness. And I believe 
that all the dear-to-God and holy Council have the same judgment 
with me on the Epistle just read. So much as this only do I say; 
that the Epistle read is very contrary to the Exposition of the holy 
Fathers on the Faith. Wherefore we in no way recognize it to be of 
[the Faith of ] the Universal Church (363). 


Donatus, a Bishop of Old Epirus, said: 'The Epistle of the most 
religious Nestorius, which has been read, expresses no doctrine of 
truth, nor do we recognize it as in harmony with the Exposition 
of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, nor with the tradition of the 
Universal Church. And moreover if any other person so thinks, he 
follows not the Faith of the Universal Church (364). 


(362). Or, ‘‘on account of,”’ instead of ‘‘at.”’ 

(363). ‘‘ The Faith of”’ is not in the Greek. 

(364). Οὗτε τῇ ᾿Εκϑέσει τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Νίκαίᾳ ovv’gdew αὐτὴν ἐπιγινώσκο- 
μεν, οὔτε TH παραδόσει τῆς Καθολικῆης ᾿Εκκλησίας. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ εἴ τις ἕτερος οὕτω φρονεῖ, οὐκ 
ἀκολουϑεὶ τῇ τῆς Καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας πίστει. 

We see here, in two of these speakers, the primitive and Universal Church 
idea of its Tradition. 

The truths of the Nicene Faith are represented by Donatus as being those 
of Catholic tradition, by others as being those of the Scriptures. There is 
no necessary antagonism between Scripture and the tradition of the Universal 
Church. The Scriptures are a part of the tradition (that is, what is handed 
down, as the Greek Παράδοσις, the Latin ¢rvadztio, and the English ¢vadition mean) 
of the Universal Church. I can in all fairness approve the definition of Catholic 
Tradition made by an opponent, a late Latin Archbishop of Baltimore, Kenrick, 
in his Vindication of the Catholic Church, page 47. ‘‘Divine tradition, as 
maintained by the Catholic Church, is not a revelation distinct from the written 
word. but in its amplest and most correct sense, it includes the Scriptures since 
it is the whole revealed doctrine as handed down in the Church from Christ and 
his apostles. * * * Itis properly the entire deposit of doctrine as it comes 
down from the beginning.’’ We would amend this last ‘clause between ‘‘ doc- 
trine’’ and ‘‘as’’ by inserting the words ‘‘and discipline and rite,’’ so as to 
make the last sentence read: ‘‘It is properly the entire deposit of doctrine, and 


The Voting on Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 1171 

DU oe en ase τον τσ το ενδ ΘΚ Ξξε ΕΞ ΞΞΞΒΕ 

Prothymius, Bishop of Comana, said: I believe the Letter put 

forth by thy Holiness, and I anathematize him who does not say that 
the holy Virgin was Bringer Forth of God (365). 


discipline and rite as it comes down from the beginning.’”’ Thus the Tradition in 
the Symbol of the Three Hundred and Eighteen and in the Symbol of the first 
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople is all in Scripture in set terms, or by just 
and logical inference. But some parts of Tradition, though not in Scripture, 
are plainly not repugnant to it, as for instance to stand in prayer on Lord’s Days, 
and during the whole period from Pask to Pentecost. 


See on this beautiful and expressive custom Canon XX. of Nice and Ham- 
mond and Bright on that Canon. And see the Πηδάλιον or Canon Law of the 
Greek Church on the same Canon. ‘We consider it unlawful,” says Tertullian 
at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, ‘‘to fast, or to 
pray kneeling on the Lord’s day; we enjoy the same liberty Srom Pask to Pente- 
cost;” On the Soldier's Crown, sections 3 and 4. There is no reason why a man 
in his private devotions should not follow this Canon at the times indicated. 
Although it has for centuries been in desuetude in the West it isin full force in 
the East. Sooner or later it must be restored with the other Canons and primi- 
tive traditions in Western Christendom, as the now idolatrous East must restore 
the Scriptural and primitive and Six Councils Tradition of worshipping God 
alone. 


Besides the Apostolic tradition of standing on those days, there are certain 
Scriptural truths, such as the three orders, the trine immersion in baptism, the 
baptism of children and their reception of the Eucharist, and the anointing of 
the sick with oil, which are sufficiently evident from ‘‘veading Holy Scripture 
and ancient authors,” to be Scriptural, but which might not be so deemed by 
any one who was ignorant of ancient authors without whose historical witness 
(not their mere private and differing opinions) there can be no intelligent and 
safe Biblical criticism on those points. All these, and I have taken them only 
as instances, to the candid and learned reader, will illustrate the benefit of Uni- 
versal Christian Tradition regarding rites. And this same earlier Catholic Tra- 
dition makes clear other facts as, for instance, 


I. That the substance of the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after 
consecration, and that there is nothing there to worship. 


II. That the early Christians invoked God alone and worshipped God 
alone. 


III. That they abhorred the relative worship of images (and relative wor- 


ship is the highest worship paid even by a heathen to an image) and that they 
had them not in their churches, but were opposed to their use there. 


IV. Their uniform use of a language ‘‘understanded of the people”? in 
worship. On some of these last points the reader is referred to Crakanthorpe’s 
Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, and to Faber’s Difficulties of Romanism (last 
edition), and to Tyler on ‘‘ mage Worshtp,” on ‘‘ Primitive Christian Wor- 


172 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Gregory, Bishop of Cerasus, said: The most religious Bishop 
Nestorius has written to the most holy and most dear-to-God Arch- 
bishop Cyril things contrary to the pious religion of the Three Hun- 
dred and Eighteen Bishops who met in Nicaea. Wherefore, because 
he holds those errors (366), I do not assent to his dogmas, but I 
approve the Explanation of the aforesaid Archbishop Cyril and of 
the aforesaid holy Fathers. 

Romanus, Bishop of Rhaphia, said: 'The most religious Nesto- 


rius has put forth an adulterated faith contrary (367), to that of the 
holy Fathers. Wherefore we anathematize that faith of his accord- 


ship,” and ‘‘On the Worship of the Blessed Virgin ;’? and on the former the 
reader is referred to “ancient authors” and to the earlier Offices of all parts of 
Christendom. 

And, moreover, the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils are a most 
important part of this tradition, for they settle many questions of doctrine as’ 
well as rite. On the whole subject of 7vadition see under Παράδοσις in Suicer’s 
Thesaurus. 

But as we propose hereafter to treat of this subject of Tradition we here dis- 
miss the subject, with the remark that no part of the Church, Greek, or Latin, 
or Anglican, has preserved αὐ the Tradition of the Universal Church, though 
each has some of it. Inthe Church of the Future purged of creature worship 
and schisms they will all be restored. 

(365). Kai ἀναϑεματίζω τὸν μὴ λέγοντα Θεοτόκον τὴν ἁγίαν παρϑένον. 

(366). “Ὅϑεν ταῦτα αὐτοῦ φρονοῦντος. 

(367). παρὰ τὴν [πίστιν understood from above in this same sentence] τῶν 
ἁγὶων πατέρων. Here is an instance of the use of παρά with the accusative in the 
sense of contrary to, and so should it be rendered in that part of Canon VII. of 
the Third Ecumenical Synod which forbids any one to offer or to write or to 
compose any Faith contrary to (not besides), that of the Three Hundred and 
Eighteen of Nicaea (παρὰ τὴν ὁρισϑεῖσαν παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν τῇ Νικαέων 
συνελϑόντων σὺν ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύματὴ). For that would forbid matters of faith in the 
Twenty Canons of Nicaea, the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod and the 
matters of Faith in its Canons, and the Definitions and the Canons of this very 
same Third Ecumenical Synod and all its other Decisions on do¢trine and all the 
Decisions of the other three Ecumenical Synods on Faith. 


So should παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα be rendered in the expression in Romans πον ὅλ": 
“worshipped and served the creature contrary to the Creator,’’ for the expression 
“more than the Creator’? might be understood to mean that it is no sin if men 
serve the creature with the Creator, provided they serve the creature less than 
they do the Creator; whereas the fact is that the Scriptures condemn all service 
to any but God. For Christ, in a passage often quoted by Cyril against crea- 
ture-service, says: ‘Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and H1M ONLY SHALT 
THOU SERVE,”’’ Matt. iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8. 


The Voting on Nestorius Epistle to Cyril. 173 


ing to that expression of the apostle which says: ‘‘/f any man 
preach any other Gospel unto you than that (368) ye have received, let 
him be anathema’’ (369). 


Theodulus, Bishop of Elusa (370), said: I reject the Epistle 
written by the most religious Nestorius to the most holy Bishop 
Cyril, because it was composed lawlessly and contrary to the 
Church’s decisions, and I hold the faith [settled] in Nicaea to be 
firm. 


Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocurura, said: ‘The things dictated 
(371) by the most religious Nestorius are utterly alien to the Ortho- 
dox faith and to the Forthset of the holy Fathers, and, besides, to 
the things written by the most devout and most dear-to-God Cyril, 
for they are in harmony with the sense of the holy Fathers on the 
faith. 


Evoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais, said: As those who counterfeit 
the imperial coin are liable to (372) the extreme (373) punishment 
by the laws, so also the most religious Nestorius who has dared to 
put forth a counterfeit of the doctrine of the Orthodoxy is deserving 
of all (374) punishment before God and men, and the very dogmas. 
which he has introduced are not in harmony with the Universal 
Church, but are to the pollution (375) AND THE RUIN of the men 
who have followed him (376). Wherefore I make myself an alien 
from his communion and from all who hold the same errors with 
him. 
πον Ae ee Wile ἀν oe se ποίου ει  ΡΑπθυ στ αν ΟΞ ΣΕΕΞΞ ΕΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 

(368). παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε. Here is an instance of the use οὗ παρὰ with the ac- 
cusative in the sense of contrary to, as well as of ‘‘ besides.” 

(369). This is in imitation of the language and the action of the inspired 
Paul in Galatians i., 8, 9. 

(370). Θεὲ, Melusa.” 

(371). Or, ‘‘written.’’ Probably every one of the Bishops of the great sees: 
like Constantinople, Alexandria, etc., was able to keep an amanuensis, to 
whom he needed only to diftate what he would have written. 

(372). Or, ‘subjected to.” 

(373). Or, “‘ the severest.”’ 

(374). donc . . . τιμορίας; or, ‘of every punishment. 

(375) Ox; ‘ detriment.” 

(376). Πρὸς λύμην καὶ ἀπώλειαν τῶν ἀκολουϑησάντων ἀνϑρώπων αὐτῷ. This im- 
plies, of course, that Evoptius held that the errors of Nestorius on the Inman, 
among which was what the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod calls. 
Man-Service, resulted in the ruin of the deathless soul. And the same is true: 


171 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


fidus, Bishop of Joppa, said: What communion hath light with 
aarkness? Or what agreement hath Christ with Belial? (377) For 
the Hpistle now read of the most religious Nestorius has departed 
very far from the truth, and it is very much in agreement with the 
lawless judgment of Paul of Samosata; wherefore it is unacceptable 
to all because of the infamous expressions (378) which it contains. 


Theodore, Bishop of Arbdela, said: 'The contents of the Epistle 
of the most religious Nestorius are not right, nor in harmony with 
the Orthodox faith, nor with the Exposition of the holy Fathers 
who came together in Nicaea, but they are utterly out of harmony 
with them. Wherefore I also anathematize him who holds such 
errors. 


Theodore, Bishop of Gadara, said: 1 also anathematize the most 
esteemed (379) Nestorius, because he has not thought corre¢tly in 
regard to the doctrines of the holy Fathers who came together in 
Nicaea, as his Epistle which has been read has shown. 


Rufinus, Bishop of Tabae, said: ‘The Epistle of the most relig- 
ious Nestorius which has been read has shown that he holds opin- 
ions which are opposed to the Faith set forth by the holy Fathers 
who came together in Nicaea. Wherefore I anathematize him, and 
I reject the infamies and blasphemies put forth by him. 


Paulianus, Bishop of Maiuma, said: J also likewise anathema- 
tize him, because he holds wicked doctrines, for his Epistle has 
proved the very fact that he holds opinions which are contrary to 
the Orthodox faith (380). 


Aeanes (381), Bishop of Sycamazon, said: ‘The judgment of the 
most religious Nestorius has been shown forth not in a simple man- 


of all service to creatures now as then. For surely if to worship Christ’s hu- 
manity has the effect here mentioned by Evoptius, worshipping creatures less 
than Christ’s humanity like the Virgin, saints, and others will much more de- 
serve and will have the same sad and mournful result. 

(B77) TI Cots Viz, τ τς. 

(378). Or, ‘‘ the infamies.”’ 

(379). τὸν τιμιώτατον Νεστόριον. 

(380). The margin here in the Paris edition of the Concilia, tome V., page 
488, states that the words ‘‘the very fact that he holds opinions which are con- 
trary to the Orthodox faith ’’ are not in one manuscript or edition. 

(381). The Latin has Aeanus. 


The Voting on Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 175 


ner, nor in a casual way, but with all clearness, throughout (382): 
his Epistle which has been read, and it is evident that he holds. 
opinions hostile to the Orthodox faith; wherefore I also in like man- 
ner anathematize him. 


Peter, Bishop of Parembola, said: Since those who have dedi- 
cated themselves to God (383) must needs thoroughly follow the 
Orthodox Faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers who came 
together in Nicaea; and since the most religious Nestorius has been 
found not to believe as it teaches (384), for that reason I also anathe- 
matize him, judging him from his Epistle which has been read. 


John, Bishop of Augustopolis, said: It has been seen from the 
Epistle which has been read that the most religious Nestorius holds. 
opinions which are opposed to the Orthodox faith. Wherefore I 
also anathematize him. 


Paul, Bishop of Anthedon, said: It especially behooves Chris- 
tians μοΐ to be yoked together (385) with those who do not hold to 
right doctrines, but to be [just] the contrary. Wherefore, inasmuch 
_as itis clear from the contents of the Epistle of the most religious 
Nestorius which has been read that he holds doctrines opposed to 
the Orthodox Faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers who. 
came together in Nicaea, I anathematize him. 


Letoius, Bishop of Libyas (386), said: ‘The sense of the most 
religious Nestorius is very contrary to (387) the Orthodox faith, as 
is evident from the things which have been read, wherefore I also. 
anathematize him. 

Saidas, Bishop of Phaents, said: 1 also anathematize him be- 
cause he holds wicked opinions, and because he does not agree with 
the Faith of the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea. For 
the reading of his Epistle has shown his judgment. 


(382). Or ‘by’ dia rye . . . ἐπιστολῆς. 

(383). Peter seems to speak as a monk, or perhaps by ‘dedicated them- 
selves to God”? (rove Θεῷ ἀνακειμένους), he means only the pious. At that time 
probably a large part of the Bishops were monks as before that. 

(384). οὐχ ὁμοίως φρονῶν. 

(385). Or, ‘‘ 2ot to be joined together,” Οὐ χρὴ τοὺς μάλιστα Χριστιανοὺς συνυπ-. 
ἀγεσϑαι τοῖς οὐ καλῶς φρονοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον. 

(2860)... Or,, ‘Zzb7as,”” 

(387). Or, ‘ very dissonant from.” 


176 Ac I. of Ephesus. 

Ware. Sho hr 
Eusebius, Bishop of Pelusium, said: All the contents of the 

Epistle of the most religious Nestorius, which has been read, are 

alien to the Faith set forth in Nicaea by the holy Fathers, and I 

necessarily anathematize them, and those who hold to them. 


Macarius, Bishop of Antaeum, said: 'The contents of the Epistle 
of the most religious Nestorius are very contrary to the Faith set 
forth by the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea; and I an- 
athematize those who so think, for they are outside the Orthodox 
faith. 

Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus, said: ‘The Epistle of the most 
religious Nestorius is in no wise in harmony with the Faith set forth 
by the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea; and, moreover, it 
does not agree with the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to- 
God Cyril; wherefore anathema to those who so believe. 


Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, said: Τὶ is clear from the Epistle 
which has now been read, that the most religious Nestorius holds 
dogmas other than the Faith of the holy Fathers; and I anathema- 
tize him, and those who hold the same errors. 


Aristobulus, Bishop of Thmuis, said: We have learned from the 
most religious Nestorius’ Epistle which has been read that he holds 
doctrines which are opposed to the right Faith; and for that reason 
I anathematize him. 

Amphilochius, Bishop of Sida, said: ‘The alien and very con- 
tentious character of the dogmas which are made thoroughly clear 
throughout the Epistle of the most religious Nestorius, not only 
rasps on the hearing of the pious and wearies it, but also shows that 
he is hostile to the right faith. 


All the Bishops shouted out together, Let him be anathema, who 
does not anathematize Nestorius! The right faith anathematizes 
him! ‘The Holy Synod anathematizes him! Let him be anathema 
who communicates with Nestorius! And we all anathematize the 
Epistle and the dogmas of Nestorius! We all anathematize the 
heretic Nestorius! We all anathematize those who communicate 
with Nestorius! We anathematize the impious faith of Nestorius! 
We all anathematize the impious doctrine of Nestorius (388). We 


(388). As ‘‘all the Bishops shouted out together, Let him be anathema who 
does not anathematize Nestorius,’ we see how very different they felt and 
believed from such Romish, and such not well informed Protestant writers, 


The Voting on Nestorius’ Epistle to Cyril. 177 


all anathematize the impious Nestorius! All the inhabited World 
(389) anathematizes his impious religion! Let him be anathema 
who does not anathematize him! The right faith anathematizes 


as attempt to whitewash the heresiarch Nestorius and assert that there was no 
great difference between Cyril and him, that the controversy between them was 
all a mere logomachy, that the Third Ecumenical Synod did wrong in condem- 
ning Nestorius, etc.; whereas the truth is that the very essence of Christianity 
was involved, that is: 

1. The truth of the Incarnation of the Word; and 


2. The question of serving a Man, a creature, that is, the Man put on by 
the Word, contrary to the fundamental law laid down by Christ Himself in 
Matt. iv., 10, and Luke iy., 8. For he who denies the Incarnation and the 
truth that God alone is to be served, that is, that every act of religious service, 
be it bowing, prostration, prayer, thanksgiving, or any other form of invocation, 
that is of calling to, or incense, or any thing else, is prerogative to Divinity 
alone, that is to the Father, to his uncreated Word, and to the Holy Spirit; he 
who denies these truths, I say, has ceased to be a Christian; he has forsaken 
that divine Redeemer who came in human flesh to abolish all creature service, 
because he has forsaken, as did ancient and creature-serving Israel, God’s teach- 
ing. And as God did not spare the Israelites because, with all their creature 
service, they still prayed to and, after their own fashion, served the true God, 
neither will He spare those who are guilty of mixing creature-service with God’s 
service now, Indeed the latter are the worse of the two classes because they 
have more light than had the Israelites who did the same things, or similar 
things. And the curses which came on Nestorius and his followers, and on the 
Greek and Latin Christians when they also afterwards fell into the sin of in- 
voking and otherwise serving creatures, have been as terrible as those which 
fell on the Israelites. For if the Israelites were cursed by Assyrian and Baby- 
lonian wars and by defeat, and being wasted and plundered, and by being car- 
ried into captivity, from which they did not return, some of them for about 70, 
others of them for about 133 years, to rebuild their city, Jerusalem, and its 
temple, the Nestorianized Christians have been even worse cursed. For the 
bulk of the Nestorians of the lowlands, once so numerous, has been utterly 
wiped out and only about a hundred thousand who have been driven up into 
the mountains of Koordistan, with perhaps 40,000 in the lowlands still main- 
tain their name, and even in our own day they have been subjected to a fierce 
and cruel massacre by the Koords, and they are poor and subject to Mohamme- 
dan tyrants, and they are indebted for what little liberty they possess not to 
their own power, but to that Protestant England which rejeéts the service of 
creatures and believes in the Incarnation, and so believes like Cyril in the main, 
on that fundamental theme, and not like Nestorius. And in large parts of the 
world, the Christians of the Eastern Church and those of the Western have suf- 
fered the loss of property, brutal tyranny, and all evils from their Saracen, or 
Turkish, or Tartar masters, and that not for 70 years like the Babylonian cap- 
tivity, but for periods of 1100 or 1200 years as in Palestine and North Africa, 


178 Act IL. of Ephesus. 


himl ‘The holy Synod anathematizes him! Let him be anathema. 
who communicates with Nestorius! Let the letter of the most holy 
Bishop of the Romans be read! 


Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: Let the Letter of the most. 


Indeed in that part of North Africa, which was once under the sway of the 
Metropolitan or Patriarch of Carthage, Christianity was almost utterly extir- 
pated for more than a thousand years, and the Christians who exist there now 
do not claim to be descendants from the former Christians there, but are French, 
Italians, and other non-Africans. And so Christianity has been as thoroughly 
extirpated from large portions of Syria and Asia Minor, and Egypt, and some 
other places as it was in Africa. And all the Greek Church, all Monophysites, 
and all the Nestorians have at some time been under the Mohammedan yoke. 
And, as I have said, all Latin Africa, including ail under the ecclesiastical sway 
of Carthage has been utterly wiped out, and parts of Sicily, most of the Span- 
ish peninsula, and parts of Italy, were held by the oppressors of Christendom 
from Africa or elsewhere for long periods. And for whatever of continued free- 
dom from that curse in our day the Greek, or Latin, or other creature-serving 
and therefore Nestorianized Christians possess, they owe to the influences of the 
Reformation which has affected them or their leaders to a greater or lesser ex- 
tent. Every nation, which was of the Christian faith in the eighth century and. 
received the image-worshipping Pseudo-Seventh Ecumenical Synod of Irene 
the accursed, and of Tarasius of the horrible death, finally became subject to 
Mohammedans if it was not then. And England, France, and Germany which 
rejected it were saved at last from them. And wherever there still remains. 
creature-service in any nation there remains in some form the curse still— 
God is not a liar. 


The conclusion then is that wherever any form of creature-service spread 
among Christians it brought down God’s curse among them as before among 
the Jews. And so the anathema of “αἱ the Bishops”’ of the Third Ecumenical 
Synod against Nestorius and his fellow creature-servers has been amply fulfilled 
by Almighty God Himself, the’ Giver of victory or of defeat, who has com- 
manded us to d0w to God and to serve him alone, Matt. iv., 10, and who has. 
promised his curse to all creature-servers from generation to generation; and his 
blessing to all who serve Him alone. But alas! the Nestorian is often as yet 
incorrigible, for he still worships, contrary to Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecumen- 
ical Council, both Natures in Christ, and besides invokes the Virgin Mary and 
Saints, and gives relative-worship to the cross, and, I judge, still follows the 
Nestorian Theodoret’s heresy of worshipping the consecrated elements in the 
Eucharist, and so rejects the teaching on such matters of St. Cyril as approved 
and formulated by the Third Council, and the Fifth. See the articles Nestorius 
and Nestorianism in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, and see Badger’s. 
Nestorians and their Rituals. But remember that he is too partial to their 
claim to be sound, to be relied on here and there. 


(389). Ὅλη ἡ οἰκουμένη ἀναθεματίζει τὴν ἀσεβὴ Θρησκείαν αὐτοῦ. 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 179 
ΠΝ Ee ee nee εςς τος 
holy and most dear-to-God Archbishop of the Romans, Celestine, be 
read, which he has sent concerning the faith. 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and Chief of the Secretaries, read’ 
[as follows]: 


A Translation (390) of an Epistle of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, to 
Nestorius. 7 


Celestine to the beloved brother Nestorius (391): [1.] The Uni- 
versal Faith (392) had peace for some days of our lifetime, after the 
unholy and often condemned doctrine of Pelagius and Celestius (393), 
for both the East and the West, had smitten them with the follow- 
ers of their opinions with the dart of a unanimous sentence. 
Straightway (394) Atticus of holy memory, the teacher of the Uni- 


ure Ὁ τς Ρπ ΘΠ 5 55 5 ---- - - 


(390). As the Greek is the only form in which the letter was understood, 
and approved by the council, I translate from it, but refer to the Latin where 
the sense is doubtful. 


(391). ‘This is a greeting of unpompous and unflattering Christian courtesy. 
How different from many of the flattering titles of that day and ours! 


This letter, we are informed by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Synodical 
Epistle of himself and his Patriarchate which follows the above in the Acts, 
was Synodical; that is, it represented not only Celestine, but also the Roman 
Synod of A. D. 430. See a note on Cyril’s long Epistle to Nestorius which has 
the Twelve Chapters or Anathemas, below. Note 1, col. 903, 904 of tome IIL., 
Coleti’s Concilia, adds matter of much importance as bearing on its Ecumen- 
icity. It states as follows (I translate from the Latin into English): SE pads 
in the Fifth Council in Conference VI. Moreover it ts recited [or ‘read’? ] ἴτε 
Act I. of the Council at Ephesus. The [Latin] Version published by Labbé 15. 
the Old, which we give with Baluze in a more correct form.’’ 


(392). ‘The note onthe above in column 469, tome 50 of Migne’s Patrologia 
Latina, states: ‘‘The printed editions, the Greek agreeing, have ‘ The Cath- 
olic Faith had quiet,’ but manuscripts of this Epistle as well as manuscripts of 
the ancient [Latin] translation of the Council of Ephesus oppose’’ [that 
leGtion]. I have seen Church instead of Faith. But the Greek is authoritative. 


(393). ‘The Greek as in the Acts here in Coleti Comc., tome III., col. 1048,, 
merely adds here, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ὥσπερ προλάμπει, that is, “΄ and the rest [οἵ the 
Epistle] as it shines forth” [in the Forematter] and omits the rest of the Epistle, 
which is given in the same volume before the Acts in the matter preliminary to 
the Council. The Latin translation in the parallel column in Coleti has here, 
“ And the whole Letter was read as it is found above,”’ that is in the Forematter 
to the Council, “ Et lecta est tota, prout supra posita est.”” But I have preferred 
to give it here in its proper place. 


(394). The Latin has “denique,” ‘‘fizadly.” 


180 Act I. of Ephesus. 


versal Faith (395), and verily successor of the Blessed John, in that 
same course of thinking and acting also, so pursued them on behalf of 
the Common King (396), that no permission was granted them to 
stay there (397). After his departure we were held in suspense by 
a no ordinary anxiety as we waited to see whether he who succeeded 
him would succeed him also in the faith; for it is difficult to make 
good things continue, for oftentimes opposites succeed each other 
alternately. But after him we had another who was quickly to leave 
us behind; that is, the holy Sisinnius, a colleague (398) of good re- 
pute for his simplicity and sincerity and holiness (399),who preached 
the very faith which he had found. Surely that simple piety and 
pious simplicity had read that it behooves us to fear rather than to 
have recourse to the depth of our own understanding (400); and, else- 
where, that we ought not to search into the deeper things (401); and 
again, Jf any one preach and enact any law contrary to what we have 
preached, let him be anathema (402). And, furthermore, when he 
departed out of the world, inasmuch as our care extended itself to as 
great an extent as the Lord permitted (403), the narration of the 
messengers who came [to us] gladdened our soul; which the report 
of our colleagues (404), who were present at thy ordination straight- 
way confirmed. For they gave such good testimony to thee as was 
necessary in the case of one who had been chosen from another 


(395). The Greek is, ὁ διδάσκαλος τῆς Καϑολικῆς Πίστεως; the Latin is Cathol- 
icae magister fldei. Venables in his article on A?¢ticus in Smith and Wace’s 
Dittionary of Christian Biography censures him too severely; and yet he states 
that ‘‘his writings were quoted as those of an Orthodox teacher both by the 
Council of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon (Labbé III., 518, IV., 831).”’ 

(396). That is, God. 

(397). That is, Constantinople. 

(398). κοινωνόν, thatis, ‘‘companion,’’ “‘comrade,’’ fellow-partaker,” “‘part- 
ner,’ that is, in the cares of the Episcopate. 

(399). The Collectio Regia Concil., tome V., Paris, 1644, page 348, has 
καὶ ἁγιότητι here. It is lacking in Migne’s Patrol. Latina, tome 50, col. 47. 

(200): Rom: ΣΙ, 207 ΕΌΠῚ ΧΙ, τὸ; “Prov. 111, 5. 

(4ο1). Ecclesiasticus iii., 21-25. 

(402). Galat. i., 8,9. In our Common Version the ἀνάϑεμα ἔστω, is trans- 
lated, ‘‘Let him be accursed.’’ And as the Greek above is exactly the same, so 
far as those two words are concerned, as the New Testament here, they may be 
so rendered. 

(403). The Latin here is, ‘‘permisit.’’ 

(404). κοινωνῶν, See note 398 above. 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 181 


place (405). For thou (406) hadst lived before in such good repute 
that a city not thine own (407) envied thee to thine own [fellow citi- 
zens] (408). But now thou livest and conductest thyself in such a 
very strange and unsuitable way that thou hast made thyself to be 
shunned, so that thine own [original fellow-citizens] can see in the 
inhabitants of another city (409) how they (410) have been delivered. 


[2]. We received thy letters a little time ago, but could not 
reply to them in a brief time (411), for their contents needed to be 
translated into Latin. And as we were doing it slowly, because of 
necessity, we received a letter regarding thee, from my holy brother, 
and fellow-Bishop Cyril, the most approved Priest (412), by my son, 
Posidonius the deacon, a letter of such a character, that we were 
very much grieved to learn from it that the testimony which the 
messengers had borne in regard to thee was rendered of no worth. 
For, as we see, an evil outcome has succeeded thy fine beginnings; 
fine beginnings I repeat, which were so celebrated among us that in 
our answer to the Report of the brethren we showed how [thor- 
oughly] we were partakers of the joy. But now in considering the 
complaint of the aforesaid brother concerning thee, and thy trans- 
lated Epistles which contain plain blasphemies, we see that we ought 
to utter the apostolic saying which here follows: J/ was wishing to 
change my voice because [am ashamed for you (413). Indeed I have 
changed it, unless the impious preacher (414) recalls himself from 
the precipice. For it is a necessity for us 20 remove from ourselves the 
evil, as we are commanded (415). We have read therefore the text 


(405). Nestorius had been called from Antioch, where he belonged, to be 
Bishop of Constantinople. 


(406). The Greek in Coleti begins here, μετὰ τοσαύτης yap καὶ πρότερον, etc, 
See his Conc., tome III., col. 904. 


(407). Constantinople. 

(408). That is, the Antiochians. 

(409.) That is, the inhabitants of Constantinople 
(410). The Antiochians. 

(411). Greek, ἐν στενᾷ. 

(412). Greek, τοῦ δοκιμωτάτου ἱερέως. 

(413). That is, ‘‘¢o alter my tone,’’ Galat. iv., 20. 


(414). ὁ ἀσεβὴς προσομιλητής. The Latin in the parallel column in tome 50 
of Migne’s Patrologia Latina has ‘‘impius disputator.”’ 
{πὸ} I. Cor. V.,. 1g; ; 


182 Act I. of Ephesus. 


of thy Epistles and have received the books (416), which were de- 
livered by the most magnificent (417), man, our Son, Antiochus. 
In them, when thou art tracked out, found, and held fast, thou 
hast wriggled out (418) [of the difficulty] by a sort of verbosity, by 
hiding things true in things which are dark, and again thou con- 
foundest both sorts, by confessing, on the one hand, things which 
are denied, and on the other by attempting to deny the things which 
are confessed. But in these thy Epistles thou hast not so much 
produced a plain sentence regarding our faith, as regarding thyself, 
because thou wishest to preach concerning God the Word otherwise 
than the faith of all holds. 


[3]. Behold, therefore (419) what sort of a sentence we are 
called on to pronounce concerning thee! Behold what are the re- 
wards of thy innovations (420)! When thou wast unknown thou 
wast elected. But when thou hadst become known thou wast ac- 
cused. ‘Iherefore with the Teacher of the Gentiles we must say, 
For we know not what we should pray for as we ought (421). Do not 
those words befit that Church which despised tried men in it, to fol- 
low thy fame, not thy knowledge? ‘The expectation of those who 
believed well of thee was deceived. For who would suppose that a 
ravenous wolf was hidden inside a sheep’s wool? It is the voice of 
the same apostle which says, Zhere must be heresies also that those 
who have been approved may be made manifest (422). Open thine ears 
and hear the words of that apostle to Timothy (423) and Titus (424). 
What does he command but that they should avoid the profane inno- 
vations (425) of expressions? For those innovations (426) result in 


(416). Probably the Sermons of Nestorius which contain his heresies. 


(417). Greek, τοῦ μεγαλοπρεπεστάτου ἀνδρὸς. The Latin for this in the paral- 
lel column in Migne is illustri viro. This is the stilted Byzantine style of that 
day. 

(418). Or, ‘‘slipped out,’’ or ‘‘evaded,’’ or ‘‘hast attempted to evade,” 
ἐξωλίσϑανες. 

(419). Migne’s text has viv, Coleti’s τοίνυν. 

(420). Or, ‘‘novelties,’’ καινοτήτων. | 

(421). Rom. vili., 26. 

(429). (Cor. x4. τὸ: 

(12: 1 Aimy wis, 20. 21: 

(424). Titus iii, 9. 

(425). Or, ‘‘novelties,’’ καινότητας, 

(426). See the last note above. 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 183 


impiety (427), and they always produce thorns and burrs (428). 
And he says that he himself (429) had exhorted Timothy δ remain 
at Ephesus and to charge certain persons that no one should preach any 
other doétrine (430). ‘The words of Jeremiah the prophet are before my 
eyes, where he says, Fearful things are done on the earth, the prophets 
prophecy unrighteousness (431). ‘Tell me, did those passages escape 
thee because they were not known by thee, or didst thou know them, 
and yet despise them? If indeed they escaped thee because thou 
didst not know them, do not be ashamed to learn what is correct, as 
thou didst not fear to teach that which is wrong. But if thou 
knowest them and then despisest them, remember that thou wilt be 
without excuse, when He asks from thee for an account of the talent 
entrusted to thee, Who always expects for Himself gain (432) by 
us from that holy loan. See what sort of punishment remains for 
that man who has hidden what he has received, and who, moreover, 
has zot [even] returned entire what he has received (433). Where- 
fore plainly understand how great a danger and what sort of a dan- 
ger it is not to give back what thou hast received. Wilt thou say 
to our Master, 7 have kept those whom thou hast given me (434), when 
we hear that His Church has been so [slaughtered and (43 5) | split 
into parts [by thee as it is]? With what sort of a conscience dost 
thou live when thou art abandoned by nearly all in that (436) city ? 
I would that they were more safe and unshaken than they are now, 
when they seek aid for themselves (437). Whence came it to: thee 
MARANON Che TNA Be © ae diy As CUAL ata αν Ἐν ΚΑΟΝ ἘΘΕΟΣ ἘΞ ἘΞΘΞ ΕΞ 


(427). Literally ‘‘ proceed to impiety,” εἰς ἀσέβειαν προχωρεῖ. 

(428). Or, ‘‘ water caltrops,’’ or, ‘‘ land caltrops.” 

(429). Migne has ἑαυτόν, Coleti αὐτόν. 

(430). Or, ‘‘an other thing,” ἄλλο. The reference is to I. Tim., i, 3. 

(431), Jerem. V., 30, 31: Septuagint. 

(432). ΄ κέρδος, which may be rendered “‘usu7y,” also. Matt. xxv. 27; Luke 
mix, 23. 

(7533) Matt, xxv., 15; 18; 24-31. 

(434). John xvil., 12. 

(435). Coleti has σφάζεσθαι καὶ, but Migne has not. Migne implies that it is 
not in the manuscripts. 

(436). The Greek is ἐν ταύτῃ τὴ πόλει, and the reference might seem to be to 
Rome were it not for the words which immediately follow which must refer to 
Constantinople. 

(437). Ihave omitted τότε, in this sentence, because from a note in Migne 
here (note h, col. 474 of tome 50 of his Patrologia Latina), we learn that man- 
uscripts omit it, and it makes better sense to omit it. 


184 Act I. of Ephesus. 


to form discourses on those questions which it is a blasphemous 
thing even to have in mind? Whence came it to a Bishop to preach 
to the people those things by which respect for the Virgin’s bringing 
forth is wounded? (438) ‘There ought not to be blasphemous dis- 
courses against God to thoroughly disturb the purity of the ancient 
faith. 


[4]. Who that has, as yet, taken away anything from the faith or 
has added any thing to it, has not been judged worthy of being anath- 
ematized? For the things which have been fully and plainly handed 
down to us from the Apostles admit neither addition nor diminution 
We have read in our books that we must neither add to nor take away 
(439). For the greatest vengeance and punishment bind both him 


(438). That is, she did not, according to Nestorius, bring forth God the 
Word, but only an inspired man, and so the bringing forth was not so import- 
ant a matter, that is, the scheme of the Incarnation is not; and the Word was. 
not made flesh (John i., 14). Indeed her bringing forth would not have been so 
greatly superior to her Kinswoman Elizabeth’s bringing forth of John the Baptist, 
for at birth, according to the Nestorian error, the divine Substance of God the 
\Vord was not in the Man. And, of course, if the Word was not made flesh, 
Christianity is false and we are lost. This is Nestorianism. While therefore we 
should thoroughly sympathize with St. Cyril’s implied anathema on the wor- 
ship of any creature and so on the worship of the Virgin Mary, in his Anath- 
ema VIII., which is approved by the whole Chnrch in the Third Synod, and 
with his express denial in his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, Book I., Sec. 4, of the sin of making her a goddess, as does 22 effect 
every one who gives her any act of worship, be it invocation, bowing, etc., we 
should, nevertheless, rememiber on the other hand not to deny that she bore 
God the Word and so is 7heotocos, that is, Bringer Forth of God, for to deny 
that, is to deny the necessary dotrine of the Incarnation. We must remain 
firm by Christ’s law in Matthew iv., 10, Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, 
and Him only shalt thou serve. We must, like St. Epiphanius, his loyal ser- 
vant, of the fourth century, say, ‘‘ Let Wary be in honor, but let the Father, 
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be bowed to. Let no one bow to Mary.’ Ἔν 
τιμὴ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ, καὶ Ὕ ὡς, καὶ “Aytov Πνεῦμα προσκυνεισϑω" τὴν Μαρίαν μηδεὶς 
προσκυνείτω, St. Epiphanius on Heresy 79, section 7. See Treat’s Catholic Faith, 
pages 78-80 for more from St. Epiphanius Against the Worship of Mary. In 
none of the Six Councils is there any worship of the Virgin. On the contrary 
they anathematize all creature-worship, in anathematizing the Nestorian wor- 
ship of Christ’s mere humanity. 


For surely if, by the voice of the whole Church, every one is anathematized 
who worships that mere separate humanity, which all admit to be the highest 
of all mere created things, much more is every one anathematized who wor- 
ships any creature inferior to that sinless humanity of Christ, be it the Virgin 
Mary, or any saint, or angel, or any other creature animate or inanimate. 


(439). Rev. xxii., 18, τὸ; Deut. ἵν. 2; xii., 32; Prov. =xx:, 6: -Ohlewiae 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 185 


who adds to and him who takes away (440). Wherefore we have pre- 
pared a cauterizing iron and a knife, because wounds which deserve 
to be excised (441) are no longer to be treated with fomentations 
(442). For we know that the greatest defects are always cured with 
the greater pain and labor. Moreover, among many things, which, 
preached impiously by thee, the Church in its entirety rejects (443), 
we weep especially over the fact that those words which promise to 
us the hope of all life and all salvation have been removed from the 
Symbol (444) by thee. Thy Epistles tell the very reason why that 


miseries the Church would have avoided had there been no innoyation in doc- 
trine, discipline, or rite. 

(440). See note last above. 

(441). τὰ τραύματα. 

(442). Or, ‘‘deserve to have the knife applied to them,” ἀποκοπῆς ἄξια. Or 
the last part of this passage may be rendered, perhaps better, ‘‘ because those 
wounds which are not otherwise to be formented, deserve therefore to be cut 
away.’ Does wound here mean tumor? 

(443). Or, “the Church utterly rejecis;”? anep .« . . ἢ καϑόλου ἀπωϑεῖται 
Ἐκκλησία. 

(444). Thatis, the Creed. The Council in this First Act decides, as above, 
that Nestorius’ views were not reconcilable with those assertions of the Creed 
that ‘‘ very God out of very God * * * came down, and took flesh, and put 
on a@ man,’ etc.; and that Cyril of Alexandria’s views do agree with it. 


The Latin here asin column 475, tome 50, of Migne’s Fatrologia Latina, 
has ‘‘Symbolo ab apostolis tradito,’’ the Creed handed down from the Apos- 
tles,’’ which seems to show that Celestine held to the legend that the Apostles 
had made the shorter form of the Roman local Creed which became, in time, 
spread over all the West, and in the increased and longer form remains in more 
or less use there to this day. In a work on this point which I hope to get 
money to publish by God’s mercy, I have shown the utter untruth of the legend, 
and to that on its publication I must refer the reader. That Creed was never 
used in the East, and therefore the Bishops of the Synod to avoid approving the 
local myth of Rome, changed this part of Celestine’s letter to suit themselves as 
they did other parts of it slightly; and, in their own form of it only, had it read 
in the Council. The striking out of the allusion to the fable of the Apostles 
having transmitted any Creed shows that they did not believe it. The myth 
was as early as Rufinus in the fourth century, and we know not how long before 
him; but it was always peculiarly Western, and the Roman Creed in its shorter 
form as mentioned by Rufinus in his work Ox the Apostolic Symbol has never 
been received by the Orient as a Creed of the whole Church, nor has it ever 
been used among any of the Greeks in any of their services. Of course, as most 
of the Apostolic Sees are in the East, if the Apostles had made such a creed as 
the legend asserts they did, those sees would have known it and preserved it. 
The fact that they have never known it, and that when it first came to them in 
this letter of Celestine they refused to translate his implied assertion of the 


180 Act I. of Ephesus. 


was done. Regarding those Epistles there is no doubt, for thou thy- 
self didst send them. We have wished that they had not come to 
our hands, for if they had not, we should not have been compelled 
to judge regarding the form of so great and so abominable a crime 


truth of the myth, and passed it by shows that they rejected it. The truth is, 
that short Creed was that of the Apostolic See of Rome, whence, or because it 
contains Apostolic doétrine, it may have been called Apostolic and the Apos- 
tles’, but even in the Roman Church, and in the Church of England, it is not 
the Eucharistic Creed; that supreme honor is given to the Creed of the Second 
Ecumenical Synod in its altered and interpolated form. As to the shorter form 
of the Roman Creed, and the steps of its gradual enlargement till abeut A. Ὁ. 
750, when it took its present form, see Heurtley’s Harmonia Symbolica, Creeds 
of the Western Church (Oxford, 1858). Xystus, Celestine’s successor, mentions 
Nestorius as having taken away from ‘‘the Creed at first handed down among 
the Apostles’, that is, as he shows, by denying the Incarnation asserted in it. 
Acacius of Melitine, an Oriental, makes Nestorius deny the Incarnation as as- 
serted in the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen. See these facts men- 
tioned on Xystus and Acacius, in note ‘‘a,’’ col. 475, tome 50 of Migne’s Pairo- 
logia Latina. ‘The Council of Ephesus itself, however, makes no mention of 
the so-called Apostles’ Creed, but condemns him for not agreeing with the Creed 
of the Three Hundred aud Eighteen of Nicaea. We see from this, 


1. That whatever Ecumenical authority any letter of any Bishop of Rome, 
read in an Ecumenical Synod possesses, it possesses because of the agreement 
of East and West in approving it in said Synod; and, 


2. That unless that approval is expressed by said Synod, we must not take 
it for granted that every thing in said letter is Hcumenically approved; though 
it may still have Western approval or may not. 


3. Sometimes such letters are so translated into Greek as to leave out cer- 
tain notions of a Roman Bishop, as for instance, this letter of Celestine is so 
rendered for the Council as to omit all reference to the Roman local tradition of 
a Creed made by the Apostles. 


There is, however, a statement in an Epistle of Celestine to the Third World- 
Council which is so ambiguous that it may or may not be taken as in favor of 
the worship of relics. We will treat of that in its proper place; and will only 
remark here that the Synod guarded against the latter sense by forbidding all 
worship of any creature animate or inanimate, and hence they forbade all relic- 
worship. 

No writer quoted in an Ecumenical Synod is to be considered as vouched for 
by said Synod except so far as they expressly approve his utterances. For in- 
stance, we must not suppose because Celestine’s defence of the Incarnation was 
approved by the Third Council, therefore his tyrannous and anti-Nicene course 
in trying to usurp Appellate JurisdiGion over North Africa was. In the Church 
Journal of Noy. 30, 1870, and Dee. 7, 1870, I have shown how North Africa re- 
sisted that usurpation, by appealing to the authority of the Nicene Canons. 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 187 


(445). A short account of them has closed the ways of all thy 
arguings; thou hast extended thyself very widely; and hast turned 
and twisted with many turns; but, nevertheless, at last, thou hast 
reached, by different roads, thy impious aim (446). We know what 


(445). Cyril of Alexandria, as we shall see when we come to his Epistle 
‘which has the Twelve Chapters, teaches that this Epistle of Celestine is that of 
himself and his Synod of Rome. 


Celestine and the Bishops of his Province, or Patriarchate, could j udge Nes- 
torius in the sense that Cyril and the Bishops of his Patriarchate judged him, 
and as the Bishops of any other Patriarchate could have judged him, that is, 
he gave his own individual judgment, and his suffragans gave theirs, and it 
was by the aggregate and entirety of such judgments, that Nestorius was pro- 
claimed to be a heretic and was deposed and excommunicated. No one Bishop 
could usurp the power which Christ had put into the hands of a// the Apostolic 
order. Celestine, in this very Epistle, shows that this was his own view, 
although he was the first Bishop of the Universal Church; but, as the Easterns 
held then and hold now, with no other juvisdiftion over Constantinople than 
Cyril of Alexandria, and every other Bishop had. For every Bishop has his 
own peculiar jurisdiction, with which no other Bishop can interfere except as 
set down in the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods, which alone made 
universal Canons. And according to those Canons Rome is limited to her own 
jurisdiction in Italy, unless an appeal be taken, as in Nestorius’ case, to the 
Church Universal; and then every Bishop gives his own vote, Rome with the 
rest, and every local Synod gives its; and the majority of votes decides and set- 
tles the question. We see this idea carried out at Ephesus where each Bishop 
gives his own separate vote on the question whether Cyril’s Epistle was in ac- 
cordance with the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen or not, then on the 
question of Nestorius’ Epistle being in agreement with it or not; then the voice 
of the chief city of the West is heard in this Epistle above, then that of Alex- 
andria, then a further examination of Nestorius’ writings is made, and then, 
with representatives of the East and the West present, the vote is taken, and he 
is deposed. It was therefore not the act of Rome alone but of all the Bishops 
together. In other words, it was the act of the Universal Church, not of one 
Bishop alone, deciding like an absolute monarch over the rest. So the Church 
judges Peter in Acts xi., and Peter and all the Apostles, not Peter alone, decide 
in Acts xv. 


Cyril, moreover, and Celestine, speak, each in the name of nis Province, 
that is, his Patriarchate, in two letters above, that is, Celestine in the above to 
Nestorius, and Cyril in his Epistle to Nestorius, which has the Twelve Anath- 
emas, for each voices a Synod just held in his own jurisdiction. 


(446). If any one thinks this language harsh, let him read the writings of 
Nestorius himself and he will be convinced. Above all let him read his Man- 
Worship, and his denial of the Incarnation on which it is based, and let him 
remember his persistent maintenance of his soul-destroying heresies. 


188 Act 7. of Ephesus. 


(447) he has ordained who has commanded to Λε strifes and fight- 
ings concerning the Law; for they are, says he, unprofitable and vain 
(448). What therefore is adjudged unprofitable and vain, no one 
doubts to be far from being an advantage. 


[5]. ‘Therefore, since also brother Cyril says that thou hast 
been warned according to the usual method by two (449) Epistles, 
in which he wishes thee to do that, know thou that after his first 


(447). Coleti has here τί, Migne ὅ τι. 

(448). Titus ii1., 9. 

(449). That is the shorter one above voted on and approved in Act I. of 
Ephesus and another written before it. The annotator in column 476, tome 50 
of Migne’s Patrologia Latina thinks that the reference here is to the three cita- 
tions of an offending brother or Bishop in Matt. xviii., 15-18; and shows that 
Cyril, in his long Epistle, translated below in Act I., which has the famous XI-. 
Chapters, unites his Synodal Epistle with the above of Celestine to form the 
third citation. I quote the annotator: 

‘Cyril himself in compliance with that Epistle [above] of Celestine * * * 
joins one of his own, meets Nestorius, and addresses him in the following 
words: Behold therefore that together with the holy Synod which met in the 
great city of the Romans, the Bishop, our most holy and most reverend brother 
and Fellow-Minister Celestine, presiding [in it], we now, for the third time, 
call thee to witness and entreat thee by this Letter, etc. That custom [of cita- 
tion] rests on the precept of the Lord in Matthew xviii., 15, where directions. 
are given as to how a brother is to be tried, as Celestine himself sets forth in his. 
Epistle XXIV., Section 9. Then the annotator shows that in the Civil Law 
also three summonses were sometimes used, and that they are commanded in 
Church matters by Canon LX XV. of the Apostles so called. He adds, 


‘But Celestine so follows custom in regard to that command of the law, as. 
to wish that the two Epistles of Cyril to Nestorius written before he [ Nestorius ] 
was reported to the prelate of Rome should be reckoned as two monitions ’’ [out 
of the three]. Cyril, in consonance with Matt. xviii., 15 to 18, had gone to 
him alone, so to speak, in his first letter; in his second had, so to speak, taken 
with himself two or three more Egyptian brethren; and finally tells it to the 
whole Church East and West, that is, to Rome in the Occident, to the Ortho- 
dox of all the great Oriental Sees, and then, gathering up Celestine’s authority 
with his own makes in the name of the two chief Orthodox Sees West and East, 
and their Synods his third summons to Nestorius; and when that failed to move 
Nestorius, he makes his final appeal not to Rome but to an Ecumenical Council 
in which Rome has such a position as Peter had in the gatherings at Jerusalem 
in Aéts xi. and xv., that is, she had one voice and one vote, as every other see 
had, and no more; and as at Jerusalem in those gatherings each Apostle, that 
is Bishop, expresses his own sentence and gives his vote freely, and the majority 
of the votes decides and settles it, so it was at Ephesus. When an Orthodox 
occupant is put into the see of Rome, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council is. 
gathered that mode of procedure will be followed again. 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 189 


Epistle and his second Epistle and after this our censure, which is 
therefore plainly the third warning, that thou art wholly shut out 
from the assembly of our Co-sitters [as Bishops] (450), and from the 
assembly of the Christians, unless thou straightway correct what 
thou hast wickedly said, unless thou return to that Way which 
Christ testifies that He Himself is (451). Thou hast wickedly and 
hopelessly wielded arms against Him, though He formerly permitted 
thee as a faithful and prudent servant to be over those of his household 
(452). ‘Thou hast lost the blessedness promised for such service 
(453). For not only dost thou not gzve food in due season, but thou 
even killest by poison those whom He purchased and gainéd by His 
own blood and by His own death (454). For poison ts under thy lips, 
those lips which we see full of cursing and bitterness (455), when 
thou attemptest to dispute against Him who is sweet and kind. 
Where is thy diligence asashepherd? Zhe good Shepherd layeth down 
his life for his own sheep,and he ts but ahireling who forsakes them and 
gives them over to the wolves (456). And what wilt thou do therefore 
(457) O Shepherd, for thou thyself, like a wolf, dost rend the Lord’s 
flock in pieces? Moreover, in what sort of enclosures can the Lord’s 
flock take refuge, since it is wounded within the enclosures of the 
Church? Or under what sort of guard will it be safe, when it suf- 
fers by thee, a ravener (458) instead of a protector? Azd other sheep 
7 have, says the Lord, which are not of this sheepfold, them also [ must 
bring back (459). He promises to bring other sheep; but thou hast 
lost the sheep whom thou hadst. ‘Though it is clear in regard to 
such matters especially, as often as they happen, that the sheep are 
not lost for the shepherds, but rather the shepherds for the sheep. 
And they shall hear, He says, my voice (460). Why? That there may 


(450). παντελῶς ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ συνεδρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν συνόδου. 
ἀποκλείσθεις. 

(451). John xiv., 6. 

(452). Matt. xxiv., 45. 

(453). Matt. xxiv., 46. 

(454). Acts xx., 28; Eph. i., 7;Col. i., 14; Rev. 1, 5. 

(455). Rom. iii., 13, 14. 

(456). john x., 11-16. 

(457). ἐνταῦθα. The Latin translation gives ‘‘hic,” here, for this, but it 
seems not to make good sense here. So I have rendered it by ‘‘ therefore.” 


(458). ἅρπαγα. This term means both rapacious, robber, and “‘a species of 
wolf’? (Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, sixth edition, Oxford). 

(459). John x., 16. I have rendered καταγαγεῖν in this passage by bring 
back, because it has that meaning sometimes, but it may be rendered bring. 
But Coleti’s text has here ἀγαγεῖν, lead, or bring, instead of καταγαγεῖν, 


(460). John x., τὸς 


190 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


be one flock (461). At His voice the flock becomes one; but at thine 
it is injured and is scattered in flight like fugitives. 


[6]. It isa hard thing that the words of the blessed Paul, taken 
from the Acts of the Apostles, may be fitly used regarding thee: / 
know, saith he, that after my departure grievous wolves shall come in 
against you, not sparing the flock. From you shall arise men speaking ΄ 
perverse. things to draw away the disciples after them (462). We 
would that those words were said by thee in regard to others, rather 
than that they were applied by others to thee. For these very 
things which we say should have been taught by thee, not learned 
by thee. For who endures the thought that a Bishop is to be taught 
how he ought to be a Christian? Diligently consider to what sort of a 
heresy (463) thou hast been called. Thou art reproved, thou art ac- 
cused, thou art brought to trial (464). Which of these things befits 
a Priest (465)? It is a hard answer, if it be indeed any defence, that 
thou vindicatest and avengest thy blasphemies with hard words. Dost 
thou suppose that we will spare thee when thou thyself dost not 
spare thine own soul, for thou wishest to take away the benefit of 
salvation from all those before us, from all those now existing (466) 
and from all those who will be. It is plain that I am following up 
as a faithful servant, the enemies of my good Lord; for the prophet 
says that he hates them with a perfect hatred (467). I remember, 
moreover, that another says that 7 may not spare (468). ‘To whom 
shall I have respect, or whose honor shall I guard, when I see thee 
doing what thou canst to take away from me the basis of all my 
hope? ‘There are words of the Lord Himself in the Gospel, in which 
he says, that zezther father, nor mother, nor children, nor any kindred 
ought be preferred to Him (469). For there is often such piety as 


(461). John x., 16. Coleti adds here εἰς ποιμήν, ‘‘ one shepherd,’ as at the 
end of that verse. 

(162). “A¢ts Ἐπὶ 29; 30: 

(463). αἵρεσιν. The Latin original has ‘‘conditionem,”’ that is, condition. 
At least I take it to be the original lection. If it was, the translators seem to 
have purposely substituted a word of different meaning for it in Greek. 

(464). προκαλῇ, διαβάλλῃ κατηγορῃ. This may be rendered, ‘‘Thou chal- 
lengest, thou accusest, thou speakest against’’ [others]. But the Latin render- 
ing in the parallel column in Migne best agrees with the text above. 

(465). That is a Azerev, that is, a herv. The Greek is ἱερεῖ, It is often used 
of a Bishop as being a priest in a high sense, for every layman is a priest in a 
lower sense, I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i., 6. See note 491, below. 

(466). Migne’s edition here adds that, ‘‘the words ad/ those now existing, 
are not in [certain ?] manuscripts.’ ‘ 

(467), “(SPsalin Cxxxix,,, 22. 

(468). Deut. xili., 8; I. Sam. xv., 3. 

(469). Matt. x., 34-38; xix., 29; Luke xiv., 33. 


Reading of Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius. 1} 


produces impiety when the fleshly relationship prevails, and bodily 
love is deemed preferable to that Love who is God (470), for the 
sake of which bodily love we often honor certain persons. But 
when that bodily love is against Him who is Love itself, then there 
is a necessity that we should cast out those considerations (471) also, 
for the Author of all such relationships of kindred is called into the 
case. 


[7]. Awake out of sleep at last. For those vigils which thot. 
devotest not to guarding but to ravening are not to be called vigils. 
We would that thou hadst been asleep in regard to that which thou 
preachest, and hadst been [really ] awake [and intelligent] in regard to 
what thou warnest against. But what shall (472) 1 say? It would 
have been more endurable to us, if thou hadst been asleep in regard 
to both. [In that case] thou wouldst have destroyed no one; thou 
wouldst have gained no one. The Church would not have been sad- 
dened by any loss of souls; she would not have rejoiced at any gain. 
It would have sufficed her if thou hadst given her back to her own 
Bridegroom as thou hadst received her. But why do I dwell on 
these matters at length, when the master-builder Paul says that I 
seek in vain anything built up by thee on the foundation, when 1 
see not the (473) foundation in thee (474). I hear that the clerics. 
who hold the universal faith (475), with whom we are in commun- 

παλιν τε το ea ee 
(470). John ἵν’, 8. 
(471). That is, we should lay aside all such considerations as earthly love, 
etc., when we deal with what concerns God. 
(472). Literally, “ What do I say?” Ti δὲ λέγω. 


(473). Or, ‘‘a foundation,” Θεμέλιον, without the article. But the refer- 
ence is probably to Christ the one foundation (I. Cor. iii., 11), to whom in the 
sound sense Nestorius did not hold. For he denied his Incarnation, as his own 
writings show, and he served by bowing His separate humanity as his own writ- 
ings, quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, prove, against Christ’s own edict, that we 
must bow to the Lord our God and serve HIM ALONE (Matt. iv., Io, and Luke. 
iv., 8), an utterance quoted by Cyril against him so often. 

(474). See the last note above. 


(475). τοὺς καϑολικῶς φρονοῦντας, literally, ‘those thinking universally.” 
Celestine’s Latin, as in the corresponding column in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, 
tome 50,.col. 479, has ‘“‘ catholice sentientes,’’ which he meant in the sense of 
“thinking orthodoxically,” for the Latins, and many Westerns have been wont 
to use catholice, Catholically, in the sense of Orthodoxically, as they often use 
Catholic in the sense of Orthodox, for they do not always adhere to its original 
sense of universal. But the use of Catholic for Orthodox, as has been said be- 
fore, is Western and local for the most part or always, for the Greek theologians 
have always been prone to stick to the literal and exact use of the original terms. 
which are a part of their own tongue; that is to say, they have used καϑολικῶς in 
the sense of universally, and καϑολική in the sense of Universal, so that they 


192 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


ion, endure the greatest violence, so that it is said that they have 
even been shut out from the city (476). We rejoice because they 
have gained the prize which belongs to those who have made the 
good confession; but we grieve because their persecutor is a Bishop. 
The blessed Apostle Paul was changed from being a persecutor into 
being a preacher; but now, O greatest impiety! to have been changed 
from being a preacher into being a persecutor! Number up the 
former heretics who brought such questions into the Church. Who 
[of them] at any time as yet has returned (477) victorious from such 
a strife? Thou hast an example in the case of thine own city (478). 
Paui of Samosata got possession of the Church of the Antiochians 
and was over it, but when he was preaching certain errors, he gath- 
ered the harvest of his own sowings (479). ‘The same firm sentence 


have not generally been wont to calla man a Catholic, because that would be 
calling him a Universal which, if taken literally, would be untrue, for no man 
is a Universal, but they called a man Orthodox ὀρθόδοξος, that is, of right opin- 
zon, and the Church and the faith Universal, that is, in Greek, καϑολική. 


(476). That is, Constantinople. For Nestorius persecuted the Orthodox 
because they would not agree to his denial of the cardinal and fundamental 
truth of the Incarnation, and because they would not agree to his Man-Service 
in bowing to the mere separate Man put on by God the Word. He used the 
same vigor towards them so long as he had the power, as he did towards the 
heretics. See on the latter point, Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., Book VII , Chapters 29 
and 31. It would have been a sad thing for Cyril of Alexandria and the Ortho- 
dox had they fallen into his clutches. But though the Emperor and some or 
most of his court favored Nestorius, and though Cyril and Memnon were im- 
prisoned or held in durance at Ephesus for a time, nevertheless, God, at last, 
delivered them and the faith out of that peril. 


(477). Or, ‘‘come off,’ ἀνεχώρησεν. 


(478). Nestorius was originally of Antioch, in the sense of being made 
presbyter there, and winning his first fame as a preacher there. According to 
Socrates, he was a native of Germanicia which in McClintock and Strong’s 
Cyclopaedia (article, ‘‘Nestorius’’) is put down as in Northern Syria, andina 
note on Chap. 29, of Book VII. of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Bohn’s edi- 
tion, it is said to be in Cilicia, ‘‘on the Western border of Syria.’’ 


(479). Paul of Samosata, seems according to the account of him given by 
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book VIL., Chapters 27 to 31, and according to 
others, to have denied the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, to have made 
Christ therefore a mere inspired Man, as Nestorius after him did, and like him 
to have worshipped him, but he held, however, that he had been deified. He 
was proud, immoral, and crafty, but was finally stript of his disguises, and de- 
posed and excommunicated at a council of Antioch held A. D. 269, or 270. See 
on him and his heresy the article Sasmosatenes in Blunt’s Di@ionary of Seéts. 
Their baptism is rejected in Canon XIX. of the First Ecumenical Council and, 
in effect, in Canon VII. of the Second. On it more anon. . 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 193 


always overthrew the rest of the inventors of evil things who had 
possession of the Churches. 


[8]. And furthermore, in relation to those heretics, regarding 
whom thou, as not knowing [thyself ] the matters concerning them, 
hast wished to ask us (480), [we would say that] a righteous con- 
demnation and decision has thrust them out from their own thrones, 
on the ground of their having spoken unrighteous things, but we 
do not wonder that they have found rest there (481); for they found 
impious preaching, in comparison with which they deemed them- 
selves innocent. At this point, inasmuch as the proper time to speak 
has demanded it, we can not be silent in regard to that at which we 
are amazed. We have read how thou believest well in regard to 
original sin (482), and how thou showest that our nature itself is 
whelmed in debt (483), and that thou rightly imputest that (484) 
debt to him who is descended from the race of the debtor (485). What 
are those who have been condemned for denying those truths doing 
with thee? ‘Things which contradict each other are never in agree- 
ment with each other without suspicion being excited. Moreover, 
they would have been expelled if they had been similarly displeas- 
ing to thee also. Furthermore, why do ye now search for the 
Actions against them, when it is clear that the Minutes [of those 


(480). The reference is to the Pelagian Bishops, Julian of Eclanum, Florus, 
Orontius, and Fabius, who after being justly deposed in the West, fled to the 
East for help and were then at Constantinople seeking aid from the first see of 
the Orient, and the second in the whole Church. Nestorius gives their names 
in his first Epistle to Celestine, and refers to their case in his second Letter 
to him. 


(481). That is, at Constantinople. 

(482). Thatis, birth-sin, which some Greeks call ancestral or forefather 5 
sin, προπατορικὸν ἁμάρτημα. 

(483). This the Pelagians denied. 

(484). Coletihas roiro . . . τὸ χρέος, but Migne’s text has τοῦτον for the 


τοῦτο. 


(485). This the Pelagians rejected. Nestorius in professing thus his faith 
seemed to be sound, but his actions belied his professions, for he entertained 
men who had already been deposed in the West for denying those tenets of 
Orthodoxy. Rev. T. W. Davids, in his article, ‘‘J/uwlianus of Eclana,” in 
Smith and Wace’s Didtionary of Christian Biography, states that ‘‘he [that is 
Julian] wth other Pelagians seem to have accompanied Nestorius to the convent 
of Ephesus, A. D. 431, and took part in the ‘ Conciliabulum,’ which was held 
by Joannes of Antioch (Relat. ad Coel. in Mansi, IV., 1334). The reading 
‘ Thessalta’ is a clerical error for ‘ /talia’ (Noris, Opp. I., 361, 363). Baronius 
(5.4. 431, LX XIX) infers from a passage in one of the letters of Gregory the Great 
(lib. IX., ind. II. ep. 49 in Fat. Lat., * * * LXXVII., 981), that the ‘Conczlza- 


194 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Actions] were sent thence (486) to us by the then Bishop, the Catholic 
(487) Atticus. Why did not Sisinnius of holy memory have to seek 
for them? Undoubtedly because he approved of the righteous con- 
demnation of those [heretics] by his predecessor. Let those wretched 
men weep that they have failed of their hope in men, for they can 


bulum’ absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal Noris (Opp. I., 362) has. 
exposed his error. The Council in their Synodical Letter to Celestine declare: 
their approval of all that had previously been done in the case of the Pelagians, 
and repeat their condemnation, expressly mentioning Julianus by name (Relat... 
u. 5.; Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract. praef. 2]. The Report of the Ecumenical 
Synod will be found further on translated by me. By “convent” above I presume 
that Davids means “‘gathering,’ if itis not a typographical error for ‘‘Council.”" 


Another thing bears on this matter as to Nestorius’ sympathy with the. 
Pelagians. 

John Henry Blunt, himself not sound on creature-service, in the article on 
the ‘‘ Pelagians” in his Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, etc., writes that “" Theo- 
dore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, * * * appears * * * before his death to 
have inclined to Pelagian views, and to have been the author of a book, of which 
an abstract is given by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople [A. D. 858-891], 
entitled, ‘ Against them that say men sin by nature and not by will, and from 
a careful analysis of whose system Neander proves its identity in many points. 
with Pelagianism [Vol. IV., 420-427]. His pupil, Nestorius, might naturally 
sympathize, to a greater or less extent, with his teacher’s errors on that point as 
on others. And judging from Celestine’s account of his actions, there is too 
much reason to believe that he did, and if Julian did really sit in the Nestorian 
Conciliabulum at Ephesus, as David thinks, it has a bad look for Nestorius’ own 
Orthodoxy on Pelagianism. And it should be remembered that it occurred after 
the above warning of Celestine. 


(486). From Constantinople. 


(487). παρὰ τοῦ τότε ἐπισκόπου τοῦ καθολικοῦ ᾿Αττικοῦ. The Latin in the parallel 
column in Migne is ‘‘acatholico tunc antistite Attico.’’ Celestine evidently 
used Catholico in the local Western sense of Orthodox, but it was rendered lit- 
erally for some reason into Greek. Celestine, who was resisted by Augustine of 
Hippo, and by what we may term the Patriarchal Synod of Latin Africa, for his. 
uncanonical attempts to obtain the power of Appellate Jurisdiction over the said 
Patriarchate, would, naturally, some might suppose, feel a little jealousy, as. 
some think his successors did of the great see of Constantinople, and might not 
be disposed to call one of its Bishops ‘‘niversal’’ in any sense. Was this ex- 
pression ‘‘ universal’? so understood by the Orientals of Constantinople as after- 
wards to furnish a sort of precedent for that unscriptural and abhorrent title of 
“‘ Universal Bishop,’ which was afterwards applied to the Bishop of that see by 
some Orientals, as Ecumenical Patriarch is now? The whole West was one 
with Rome in opposing both, and will ever so oppose. Augustine’s letter to: 
Celestine and that of the Council of Latin Africa are in tome 50 of Migne’s. 
Patrologia Latina, col. 417-427. I have translated them, one in the Church: 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 195 


be aided towards communion only (488), by changing their minds. 
Lo! thou hast begun to learn in regard to them, if thou wast ignor- 
ant in any respect before. 


[9]. But heal by a Catholic (489) and rapid reflection, thy 
own wound rather than that of others, for we say to thee appositely, 
Physician heal thyself (490), thou who aimest to help others. The 
character of thy disease neither admits nor permits the granting of 
delay. We have held and do hold the tried and approved faith of 
the Priest (491) of the Church of the Alexandrians (492). And do 


Journal of New York City, for Nov. 30, 1870, and the other in its issue for Dec. 
7, 1884. The letter of the Council of Latin Africa to Celestine and the African 
Code in which it stands were adopted by the Trullan Synod of A. D., 691, or 
692, and are now part of the Canon Law of the Greek Church. 


(488). The Greek here as in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 50, col. 481, 
has οἵ τίνες εἰς μόνην τὴν κοινωνίαν διὰ μετανοίας βοηθεῖσθαι ἠδύναντο. The Latin is 
soniewhat different, for it reads, quibus jam potuit propter communionem sola 
penitentia subvenire. According to the Greek it looks as though the deposed 
Pelagians could never get back their episcopal dignity again; according to the 
Latin, the sense is that they could be admitted to communion ‘‘ dy repentance 
aloné,’’ where nothing is said of its being impossible to reach the episcopate 
finaily. But the author of note ‘‘h,”’ in the above specified column of Migne, 
states in effect that the sense is the same because a penitent could not be made 
a Bishop. He refers in the same note to Prosper, to Augustine, to Innocent and 
toZosimus. The heretics named above had for years been persistently troubling 
the Church, and the feeling of the Orthodox was strong against them. 


* They had made the Appeal to the Church Distributed, that is, to the great 
sees East and West and had been condemned, and were soon to be condemned 
by the whole Church together in the Third Ecumenical Council. But they came 
to it with no such strong backing as Nestorius had, for the bulk of the Patriarch- 
ate of Antioch was at his back and so were the majority of the Bishops of 
Syrian race and nationality. 


(489). καθολικῇ . . . σκέψει. Here καθολικῇ is to be taken in the sense of 
Orthodox, or less probably in the sense of wxzversal, that is, a refleCtion on one’s 
whole ways. The Latin hereis ‘‘Catholica * * * deliberatione ;’’ Celestine 
using ‘‘ Catholica”’ in the sense of Orthodox , as the Latins then did. 

(490). Luke iv., 23. 

(491). τοῦ ἱερέως. Inasmuch as every Christian is a Priest (I. Peter ii., 5, 9; 
Rev. i., 6), a Bishop must be a Priest also, or else he is not even a Christian and 
is less than the Christian people. He is a Priest in az excellent sense, because 
he exercises the functions of that part of the Universal Priesthood of Christians, 
to which belong the peculiar prerogatives of the Apostolate, that is, the su- 
preme spiritual sway over the other, the lower orders of the ministry, and over 
the people, and the supreme control over all the temporalities of the Church as 
laid down in the New Testament. Just as, under the Mosaic dispensation, all 


196 Act I. of Ephesus. 


thou who hast been admonished by him, again hold the same opin- 
ions as we do, if indeed, O brother, thou wishest to be among us 
(493). If therefore understanding has been given thee, condemn all 
the errors which up to the present time thou hast held, and straight- 
way preach, as we wish, those truths which thou seest him preach- 
ing. For we (494) endure beyond what is fitting that even the 
Priests (495) should be allowed to correct themselves; but as we 
show care for them, by warning them at first after the Church’s 
method (496), so if they abuse that sound admonition, it will bea 


the people of Israel are called ‘‘a Kingdom of Priests”’ (Exod. xix., 6), and yet 
the Sons of Aaron were priests in a higher sense than the rest of their people, 
because certain functions in that priesthood were peculiar to them, as laid down 
in their Law, which functions God vindicated for them and for order and disci- 
pline against Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who attempted to usurp them. See 
the sixteenth chapter of Numbers. So God has vindicated the peculiar rights 
of his God-alone-invoking Apostles and Bishops again and again. But these 
functions do not belong to heretical and idolatrous Bishops. 

The term priest is often applied to the Bishops especially, in the early 
writers, though it is applied also to Presbyters, that is Elders, for they, of 
course, as being Christians are priests also, priests that is in a higher sense than 
the Deacons, or the Christian people, because they have higher functions than 
they have, but they are priests in a lower sense than the Bishops because their 
functions are not so exalted as theirs. The term fvzes? is applied in all liturgies 
to the Presbyter in an eminent sense as leading the devotions and the offerings 
of his priestly people. 

(492). Cyril of Alexandria. 

(493). Or, ‘‘ wth us,” μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. 

(494). Celestine is speaking as the representative of the Orthodox part of 
the Church, West and East on this matter, as its first Bishop, or as the repre- 
sentative of the Roman Council of August, 430, for this letter is dated August 
II, 430, like the other Synodal letters. See a note below on them. 


(495). See what is said on this word fvzes?, in the last note but three above. 


(496). Coleti, ‘‘ were caring,’’ édpovrifouev, but Migne has gpovrifouev, The 
Church method is in effect laid down by Christ himself in Matthew xviii., 15-19. 
This method of discipline is set forth by the Master to be used by the Afostéles 
alone and the Bishops their successors. For it was said by Him to the Twelve 
only. See in proof this passage in Robinson’s English Harmony of the Gospels, 
Section 79, and especially the parallel »lace there, Mark ix., 35. And it was 
from the beginning applied only to that order, asin this do¢trinal struggle be- 
tween Cyril of Alexandria the original rebuker, and Nestorius of Constantinople 
the rebuked, who after the third of the three steps, tha. is, the telling the mat- 
ter to the whole Church, at Ephesus became by its just decree, ‘‘as a heathen 
man and a publican”? to it (Matt. xviii., 17). The sentence of binding there 
given against this apostate denier of the Inman and Man-Server, and therefore 
creature-server, if he never repented, remains ratified in heaven (Matt. xviii., 18). 


- 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 197 


necessity for us to confirm the sentence of condemnation against 
them (497). But that [correction of a Priest by himself] will take 
place, when thou shalt have condemned thy base doctrine, when 
thou shalt have given a testimony full of correction [of thy errors], 
and if all those shall have been recalled to the Church, who, it is 
clear, have been excluded from it on account of the Anointed One 
(498), who is its Head (499). Let them all be recalled. If what 
we say is not done in regard to them, he (500) must be cast out who 
has cast out, especially because those against whom such a man as 
thou hast appearedst (501), are certainly in our communion. 


[10]. And, as the necessity has demanded, we have sent letters 
[502] to the clergy of the Church which is at Constantinople and to 


But we must remember that the third step was by Christ’s order in Matt. xviii., 
15-18, to tell it to the whole Church, that is, to the whole Church Teaching, the 
Apostolate, not to Peter’s Western see only. And that Cyril did at Ephesus, 
and they gave the supreme and final decision, not Celestine. 


(497). Alexandria had already condemned Nestorius, and so were minded 
the Orthodox in that East of which Cyril was the chief Orthodox Bishop after 
Nestorius’ fall. Rome as the then head of the West now adds her vote against 
him that the condemnation may be seen to be universal. And, as Cyril shows, 
in his letter that has the XII. Anathemas, the Roman Synod’s Action is voiced 
in Celestine’s letter above. Yet though Celestine had spoken, nevertheless no 
Eastern, and indeed so far as appears, no Western deemed the case to be decided 
till the Ecumenical Council had spoken at Ephesus. 

(498). Greek, διὰ τὸν Χριστόν. 

{159}... Eph. 1.,.22; ἔν; 15,/v., 23; Col. 1, 18; and 11. 10; 

(500). Nestorius. 

(sor). Coleti has here ὦφθης, thou appearedst, Migne ὠφθη, he appeared. 


According to the last reading we must render, ‘‘especially because those 
against whom such a man as he has appeared are in our communion.”’ 


(502). Or, “a letter,’? γράμματα. The above letter is Synodal as St. Cyril 
testifies in his long letter which has the XII. famous and glorious Chapters 
and which follows this. It is in response to the Appeal made, not to Rome alone 
but to the whole Church East and West distributed in its great Diocesan sees, 
and in its great Diocesan Councils. When we come to the opening of the Third 
Ecumenical Council we shall find that of the great Diocesan sees of the Eastern 
Empire, the following had taken the Orthodox side as against Nestorian errors. 


τ. Alexandria, the head of the Egyptian Diocese, represented by St. Cyril 
and his Bishops. He had written most largely of all before the Third Synod, 
in his three Letters to Nestorius, one of them Synodal, and in his Five Book 
Contradiétion of Nestorius’ Blasphemtes. 

2. Ephesus, the head of the Asian Diocese, represented by Memnon and 
his Bishops. 


198 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


all who are marked [503] with the name of the Anointed One[504], 
in order that if thou continue in the obstinacy of thy perverted argu- 
ing and dost not preach those very things which brother Cyril 
preacheth with us, they may learn that thou hast been separated from 


3. Caesarea, the head of the Pontic Diocese, represented by Firmus and his 
Bishops. 

The other two Dioceses of which, with the three above, the Eastern Empire 
was composed, were: 


4. Thrace, the head see of which was Constantinople, the Bishop of which, 
Nestorius, was on trial. As his heresy met with opposition there as soon as it 
was broached, and the Bishops and people were warned, Nestorius’ following 
from it was very small. 

5. ‘The Diocese of Syria, which was called the Diocese of the East, where 
the controversy had risen, was almost wholly on Nestorius’ side. Its chief pre- 
late, John of Antioch, and its two chief scholars, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 
and Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, voiced in writings their hostility to Cyril and 
to Orthodoxy before the Third Council met. 


In the Western Empire, according to Bingham’s Division in his Antiquities 
of the Christian Church, Book IX., Chapter I., Sections 4, 5 and 6, there were 
eight Dioceses, four of which, Britain, Gaul, Spain, and Africa, for their pagan- 
izings, were at this time hard beset by invading hordes of pagans as in Britain, 
and by Arians in the case of the other three. Besides, at this time, parts of 
Britain were still heathen. Of the other four Western Dioceses, 


1. Rome, with its sway in Italy, took the Orthodox side in its Council of 
A. D. 430, in which Celestine presided, and from which the above and other 
letters emanated by Celestine. 


2. Africa was represented by a Deacon only, Besula, with an Epistle from 
its Patriarch, Capreolus of Carthage, its head, and took the Orthodox side. 

3. The Diocese of Macedonia, followed Orthodoxy. 

4. The Diocese of Dacia was weaker, and we shall find how it was repre- 
sented further on. 

None of those letters or writings before the Council, Cyril’s, Celestine’s, 
Capreolus’, John of Antioch’s, or any writings of Theodoret or Andrew, or of 
any other, finally settled the question. That was finally and forever to be 
decided by the Third Ecumenical Council. Nevertheless, as it is of interest to 
know what the chief sees and their Councils did, I have mentioned and the 
Ads of Ephesus tell us much of the part piayed by Cyril and by Nestorius. 
And I here summarize the correspondence on the Nestorian controversy which 
is found among Celestine’s Epistles in tome 50 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, 
columns 437-558. 

First come two letters of Nestorius to Celestine. They give his own warped 
side of the controversy. As Celestine replied to them on Aug. II, 430, after 
slow work, as he testifies in Section 2 of his answer, in translating his Greek 
into Latin they must have been some time before that. Indeed they had been 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 199 


our college [of bishops], with whom thou canst have no communion, 
and that when they learn that, they may thereafter be unshaken 
by thy [evil] example, and may know how they ought to provide for 
their own souls by a well matured and well digested judgment (505). 


presented, as St. Cyril testifies, before his own Letter to Celestine which, accord- 
ing to a note in column 447 of that tome of Migne, was written about the 
middle of A. D. 430. That letter of Cyril next follows and gives the Orthodox 
side of the question as does Cyril’s Commonitory to his deacon Posidonius, 
which follows it, whom he sent to Rome with his Epistle to Celestine, and 
“tomes containing the heads of Nestorius’ blasphemies,’’ as Cyril words it at 
the end of hisCommonitory. Next comes a Fragment of a Sermon delivered 
in a Roman Council, probably, as the article ‘‘ Rome (Concile de) lan 431” in 
Migne’s Diftionnaire des Conciles, states, in the Synod there held in August of 
that year, where the documents pertaining to the Nestorian controversy were 
examined and Nestorius was condemned and Cyril approved. 


On August 11, 430, the letters were written to all the chief sees of the East, 
and probably to those of the West, and so through them, as Celestine words it 
above, ‘‘¢o all who are marked with the name of the Anointed One.’’ The 
letters were Synodal, for they emanated from that Council of Rome, but as 
Cyril’s long letter to Nestorius, which has the XII. Chapters, is Synodal and is 
often so termed, while it is also often called Cyril’s without any mention of his 
Council, so the Epistles emanating from that Roman Council of A. D. 430, are 
sometimes mentioned as Conciliar, sometimes as Celestine’s, as a writer ex- 
plains in note ‘‘a,’’ column 465, tome 50, of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. One 
of those Epistles next follows, and is addressed by Celestine to Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, and is strong against Nestqrius for his heresies and at the end pronounces 
excommunication against him unless he repent and profess the faith held 
by the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the whole Church. It is dated August 
Ti, 430. 

It is followed by an Epistle “‘ to John” of Antioch; or, according to the Latin 
heading, to John [of Antioch], Juvenal [of Jerusalem], Rufus [of Thessalonica], 
and Flavian [of Philippi]. The Greek heading has ‘‘¢o John”’ only. But there 
is no discrepancy here; for it is merely a copy of a letter which was sent to each 
of the aforesaid separately. At the end Celestine states that he had written to 
Cyril of Alexandria that unless Nestorius, within ten days after his reception of 
the warning, condemned his sacrilegious preachings on Christ’s birth, and pro- 
fessed the faith held to by the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the whole Church, 
he was to be removed from the assembly of the Bishops. It was dated August 
II, 430. Next comes the above one of Celestine to Nestorius, of Aug. 11, 430. 
Next, in Migne’s edition, comes an Epistle of Celestine to the clergy and the 
people of Constantinople. It is also dated August 11, 430. It exhorts them to 
stand fast against Nestorius’ errors, declares that he regards Nestorius’ deposi- 
tions and excommunications of the Orthodox to be void, announces that he 
(Celestine) had made Cyril of Alexandria his place-holder, and then informs 
them of the sentence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius unless he 


200 Act I, of Ephesus. 


[11]. Know therefore, clearly, that our sentence is this, namely, 
that unless thou preach those very doctrines concerning our God 
Anointed (506), which both the Church of the Romans, and the 
Church of the Alexandrians, and all the Universal (507) Church 
holds fast, and as the holy Church in the great city of Constantine 


renounce his errors against the faith of the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the 
whole Church, and of the Church of Constantinople up to Nestorius’ time. Next 
comes a letter of Nestorius to Celestine in which he explains his views on the 
terms Θεοτόκος, that is, Bringer Forth of God, Χριστοτόκος, Bringer Forth of the 
Anointed One, and ἀνθρωποτόκος, Bringer Forth of a Man. Itis a weak letter 
and contains no renunciation of his heresies on the Incarnation and on Man- 
Service. According to note ‘‘d,’’ column 499, tome 50 of Migne’s Fatrologia 
Latina, it was written about the end of November, A. D. 430. Then comes a 
letter of Celestine to Cyril which was written May 7, A. D. 431. Celestine 
advises him to offer pardon or indulgence to Nestorius if he would correct him- 
self, so that if he proved obstinate he might be regarded as the author of his 
own ruin, and asks him to proceed with very much caution regarding him and 
the suspects. The next is a Commonitory of Celestine to his legates to the 
Council of Ephesus as to how they should act. It is dated May 8, 431. The 
next Epistle is one of Celestine to the Third Ecumenical Council, which bears 
date May 8, 431. It will be found in the Acts further on. Next comes a letter 
of Celestine to the Emperor Theodosius. It is dated May 15,431. It urges him 
to permit no novelties in religion, and to put the care of the faith before that 
of the Empire. Then follows a Report of the Synod of Ephesus to Celestine, 
which we will give further on in English. It gives an account of their Actions. 
Next comes an Epistle of Celestine to the Council after the deposition of 
Nestorius. It is dated March 15, 432. It apprpves the deposition of the here- 
siarch and the putting of Maximian into his place. It urges that Nestorius be 
sent far away from Antioch, and that unless John of Antioch and his other sym- 
pathizers repented and condemned their errors, they be deposed; but if they 
became Orthodox they were to be pardoned. Next comes Celestine’s Epistle to 
the Emperor Theodosius II., in which he praises him for helping the Church 
against its Nestorian enemies, praises the election of Maximian to the see of 
Constantinople, and asks that Nestorius be removed from troubling the Church. 
This letter was written March 15, 432. Then comes Celestine’s Epistle to 
Maximian, Bishop of Constantinople, written after the Third Ecumenical 
Council, March 15, 432. He expresses his joy at his ordination, urges him to 
repair the damage done to the Church of Constantinople by Nestorius, and to 
watch against Pelagian errors. Finally comes a letter of Celestine, dated also 
March 15, 432, addressed to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, in which he 
denounces the false doctrine, obstinacy and pride of Nestorius, and shows that 
his condemnation was just, professes his zeal for the Constantinopolitans and 
commends their firmness in the faith, and praises their new Bishop Maximian. 

We must praise Celestine and his local Roman or Italian Council for the 
support given by him and them to St. Cyril and the Orthodox, though he was 
vastly below St. Cyril as a theologian and in grasp of all the matters involved 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 201 


(508) very well (509) held fast until thee, and unless within the tenth 
day reckoned from the time that this admonition comes to thy 
knowledge, thou put away by a clear and written confession that 
unbelieving novelty and innovation of thine which attempts to sepa- 
rate the very things which the Holy Scripture joins together, thou 


in the controversy; but we must blame him for his tyrannous course in trying, 
contrary to the Canons of Nicaea, to usurp under local Sardican Canons falsely 
adduced as those of Nicaea, Appellate Jurisdiction in the Diocese of Africa, of 
which Carthage was the chief see. How nobly Augustine of Hippo resisted 
him and his claim, and how he besought him not to subjugate the Africans by 
the aid of the secular powers which were at his disposal, is told in Augustine’s 
Epistle to him in columns 417-422, tome 50 of Migne’s Fatrologia Latina; and 
how firmly and grandly Aurelius of Carthage and the Council of the African 
Diocese withstood his arrogance and attempt at usurpation is told in their Hpzstle 
to Celestine, in columns 422-427, and in their Canons which forbade such Anti- 
Nicene Appeals to Rome, under pain of deprivation of communion to the 
appellant. They are found in English with other matter connected with them 
in Zhe Church Journal of New York City, for 1870, Aug. Io, Aug. 17, Aug. 31, 
Sept. 7, Nov. 30, and Dec. 7. God willing, they will appear in a future volume 
of Nicaea in this set. 

(503). Do Celestine and his Synod use the above expression as a general 
appellation for a Christian, or for the signing with the cross the candidate in the 
initiatory rites? Of the signing the forehead of the catechumen, or the bap- 
tized infant with the sign of the cross, as in the Church of England Baptismal 
Offices, I hope to treat more fully either in the Appendix at the end of Act I. of 
this Council, or elsewhere on the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, in 
a note too long to be inserted here. The Greek is τοὺς ἐπιγραφομένους τὸ τοῦ Χρι- 
στοῦ ὄνομα. The Latin, as in the parallel column in tome 500f Migne’s /uairo. 
logia Latina (col. 483), is ‘‘qui censentur nomine Christiano,’’ which is deemed 
the original, which means ‘‘ who are reckoned under the Christian name.’ In 
Harpers’ Latin Diétionary of 1882, under Censeo, I., B. d., end, I find it trans- 
lated ‘‘ marked’ once, though that sense is rare for it. Besides it does not 
mean a mark on or over the forehead there. Hence it does not naturally refer 
to the signing with the cross; nor does the Greek ἐπιγραφομένους necessarily; but 
it may be rendered ‘‘ marked with the name of the Anointed One,” as in the 
translation above, or more freely but not widely different in sense ‘‘ who bear 
the name of Christ,’ that is, ‘‘who are called Christians,’’? which seems, con- 
sidering the sense of the Latin original, which it is fair to presume the trans- 
lator endeavored to give in Greek, the more natural meaning. On the whole 
then there seems no clear proof that the sign of the cross is here referred to 
either by the Latin original or the Greek translation. 

(504). That is Christ. 

(505). Or, according to another manuscript reading, ‘‘ with whom thou 
canst have no communion, and they being about to learn that, and being there- 
after unshaken by thy [evil] example, ought with reference to that very thing 
to provide for their own souls by a well boiled down and well cooked decision.” 


202 Act I. of Ephesus. 


art cast out (510) from [all] (511) the communion of the Universal 
Church. We have sent this very decision (512) of our judgment on 
thee by our son aforesaid, Posidonius the deacon, with All the papers, 
to the holy man our Fellow-Bishop, the Priest of the aforesaid Alex- 
andria, who has given us a very complete (513) account regarding 


(506). περὶ tov Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν. Here is Economic Appropriation. 


(507). The Greek here asin Migne is, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ καθολικὴ ᾿Εκκλησία κατέχει; 
but the Latin in the parallel column is, “εἰ Universalis Ecclesia Catholica.”’ 


(508). Constantinople. The Latin has ‘‘sacrosan¢ta Constantinopolitanae 
urbis Ecclesia,’’ at least as in the parallel column in Migne. If that represents 
exactly Celestine’s Latin, the translator or translators gave it a slight change, 
in compliment to the greatness of the city of Constantinople. The Greek is, of 
course, the only form of this Letter which comes with the seal and formal ap- 
proval of the Third Ecumenical Synod. 

(509). Κάλλιστα. 

(510). The Greek here, as in Migne, is ἀπὸ πάσης κοινωνίας τῆς καθολικῆς ’EKkAn- 
σίας ἐκβέβλησαι. Note ‘‘i.,” column 483, tome 50 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, 
informs us, however, that, ‘‘In manuscripts [or, ‘in the manuscripts’] there 
is no ἀπὸ πάσης." I have therefore put ‘“all’’ in brackets to denote that it is 
doubtful. 


(511). See note 507 above. 
(512). Latin, ‘‘formam; Greek, τύπον. 
(513). τὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς περὶ τούτου αὐτοῦ ἐντελέστερον ἀνενεγκόντα. 


(514). ἵνα τοποτηρῶν ἡμῖν τοῦτο πράξῃ, ὥστε τὸ Tap’ ἡμῶν ὡρισμένον, ete. A note 
in column 484, tome 50 of Migne’s Fatrologia Latina, on the iva of the clause 
here quoted, states that ‘‘Manuscripts [or ‘The manuscripts’] have ‘af us 
place holders,’’? MSS. τοποτηρητῶν ἡμῶν. According to that reading we must 
render that place as follows, ‘‘z order that he may perform that funciion of us 
place-holders [that is, of us who hold the two chief places in the Church, Rome 
the first see of the West and of the whole Church, and Constantinople, the first 
see of the East and the second see of the whole Church], so that what has been 
decided by us may be made known both to thee and to all the brethren.” It is 
not clear from Migne’s statement above whether this reading is the le¢tion of a 
few manuscripts, of the majority, or of all of them. The Latin original, asin 
the parallel column, is, ‘‘ut agat vice nostra, quatenus statutum nostrum vel 
tibi vel universis fratribus innotescat;’’ which means, ‘‘ that he may act in our 
stead, to the end that our decision may become known both to thee and to all the 
brethren.’ ‘The two Greek lections above differ in sense. 


Rome of course had a right to one place only among the great sees of the 
Church, and one vote only. But Cyril with the aid of that then greatest see of 
the West, with Carthage, and with the aid of his own see, which, after Constan- 
tincple, was the greatest see of the East, with the Bishops assembled from every- 
where, would represent the whole Orthodox Episcopate. And we shall find 


Reading of Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius. 203 


058 8 5080 


this very matter, in order that he may hold our place (514) and 
attend to this thing (515), that so what has been decided by us may 
be made known both to thee and to all the brethren; because all 
ought to know what is done, as often as (516) the investigation is on 
a matter of interest in common (517).”’ 


‘Carthage, the next greatest see of the West after Rome, represented, and with 
Cyril farther on. And the other Western sees were at this time of not so much 
account as they are to-day, for their people were inferior at that time in knowl- 
edge, civilization and religious influence to those of Italy, of which Romie was 
the head, and to that North Africa of which Carthage was the Patriarchal see. 

. But oh! what a grand sight would an Ecumenical Synod present to-day, 
with a Patriarch of London sitting in it, with one of Paris, another of Berlin, 
another of Vienna, another of St. Petersburg, another of Moscow, another of 
Madrid, another of New York or Washington, etc., and a Patriarch of each 
nation in Europe and in America, or several Patriarchs where the nation is very 
large. God grant us to see a true Orthodox Christian-world-representing 
Council before we die, to do away all service to created or made things and per- 
sons, and all infidelity, and all abuses, that the Church after her long division 
into East and West, the result, as the Homily Against Peril of Idolatry of the 
Church of England teaches, of its idolatry, may be without spot or wrinkle or 
any such thing, a fit bride for her heavenly Bridegroom, that the Christian 
nations may fly upon the shoulders of the Philistine idolatry of Rome in the 
West, and that they may reduce to obedience the Turk and the Arab who have 
ravaged the East, and that the Kingdoms of this world may become the King- 
doms of our Lord and of His Christ. But we shall never see an Ecumenical 
Council till the sees West and East are filled with Orthodox Men, not Mariolaters 
and Image-Worshippers. The first thing to be done therefore is to depose all 
such paganizers. 


(515). That isto so attend to the Nestorian controversy in the East, as to 
make known to all there the decision of Rome and its local Council against 
Nestorius and his heresies, which with Carthage spoke for the chief parts of the 
then West, and so with Cyril and the other Orthodox Prelates of the East really 
showed that a clear majority of the Episcopate was against his errors and con- 
demned them before the Third Synod met. See note 514. 

(516). Greek, ὁσάκις. 

(517). The Latin as given in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 50, col. 483, 
485, has here what I add, but translated into English: 

“And in another hand, ‘God keep thee safe and sound, dearest brother. 
Given on the third day before the Ides of August, Theodosius and Valentinian, 
the August Ones, being Consuls, the former for the thirteenth time and the latter 
for the third.’”? This date is August 11, 430. Note e, column 469, tome 50 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Latina states that the above Epistle was received in Con- 
stantinople on November 30, 430, and therefore more than six months before the 
day (June 7, 431), appointed for the opening of the Third Council, and nearly 
seven before it a¢tually begam on June 22, 431. 


204 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, 
said; The Holiness of our most God-revering Bishop Cyril has 
written things which are in harmony with those things which have 
seen read, and we have them in our hands (518), and, if your God- 
Worshippingness will command, we will read them. 


(518). Or, ‘‘at our hands.”’ 


(519). Coleti Concil., tome 3, col. 1048. Φλαυιανὸς ἐπίσκοπος Φιλίππων εἶπεν" 
᾿Αναγνωσθέντα καὶ ταῦτα ἐμφερέσθω τοῖς πραττομένοις. The margin has ὑπομνήμασι. 
The Latin has ‘‘Flavianus Philippensium ΕΡΙΒΕΘΡῚΣ dixit: Legantur haec Ps 
letaque in actorum commentarios referantur.’ 


(520). THE EPISTLE OF CYRIL, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, AND OF HIS 
ΘΎΝΝΟΙ. TO NESTORIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, WHICH FOLLOWS ABOVE, 
HAS THE TWELVE CHAPTERS, and is one of the most important that has ever 
been written, because it condemns the Nestorian denial of the Incarnation, all 
creature-service, the error of the Presence of the Divinity of the Son on the Holy 
Table, all worship of It there, the error that we eat It there, the error that we 
may worship His separate humanity there or elsewhere, and all cannibal views 
on the Eucharist, and because it is Ecumenically approved. So that a note- 
worthy thing is that before there was any decision in any local Council in favor 
of any of those errors, there was a condemnation of them in an undoubted 
Ecumenical Council which spake by the Holy Ghost, in conformity with the 
promise of Christ that He would be with the Universal Apostolate to the end of 
the world to guide them into all truth. So that the blessed Reformers of the 
English Church were Restorers, so far, of the faith of the Universal Church 
which had been contradicted by divers local idolatrous conventicles, such as that 
falsely styled Seventh Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, A. D. 787, the Fourth 
Lateran of A. D. 1215, and others, which in fact opposed the Third Ecumen- 
ical Synod. And we should add that as the falsely called Ecumenical Council 
of the Vatican of A. D. 1870, which represented only a part of the West, and 
not one valid episcopate of the East, which contradicts the decision of the really 
Universal Sixth Ecumenical Council of A. D. 680 by saying that its condemna- 
tion of Pope Honorius was wrong, has never been able to undo and abolish that 
Decision of the Sixth Council of the whole Church, East and West, so neither 
will all the efforts of creature-invoking and image-worshipping and Host-wor- 
shipping Synods, ever be able to do away with the God-led decisions of the 
Third Council of the whole Church, East and West, against those errors. This 
Epistle of Cyril, with the shorter one approved by vote above, and the condem- 
nation in this Act I. of Ephesus of Nestorius’ teaching of such errors, will live 
for ever and will at last universally prevail. But to go on with this Long Epistle 
of St. Cyril. 


The following is a 
SUMMARY OF ITS CONTENTS. 


Cyril of Alexandria begins by saying that he dared not, in view of the Day 
of Judgment, be longer silent, that he and his Synod write in conjunction with 


Command to Read Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 205 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: Let them be read and be put 
into the Acts (519). 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, 
read (520): 


the one holden at Rome, and that the Synod at Rome and that at Alexandria 
have assented to his former Letters to Nestorius. He states that they do not 
admit the validity of his deposition and excommunication of Orthodox clerics 
and laics for thetr Orthodoxy, tells him that tt 15 not enough for him to confess 
the Symbol, that 1s Creed, which he admits only in a perverted sense on the 
Incarnation, and that he must condemn his own heresies and admit that sense of 
the Creed which the Whole Church East and West did. Cyril then recites (as 
he always does) not the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod (the Constantino- 
politan), but that of the First (the Nicaean), in full with its Anathema, states 
that we must refer every thing in the Son, what belongs to the Man as well as 
what belongs to the Word, to the Word alone; condemns the relative bowing to 
the Man because of the indwelling Word, which was the doéirine and Man-Ser- 
vice of Nestorius, and the applying to that Man the name of God which was a 
part of the same Nestorian service to a creature; condemns the cannibal error 
of eating the flesh and blood of that man in the Eueharist, as abhorrent and 
God-forbidden, teaches that all expressions of Holy Writ used of the Son, those 
pertaining to the Manas well as those pertaining to the Word, must be referred 
Economically to the Word, the infinitely superior Nature of the two, in order 
to preserve the unity of fis Person, and His due preeminence and prerogatives 
as God, and to save us from co-worshipping a Man with God the Word, that is 
Srom creature-worship. Hets High Priest and Sacrificer, but for our sins, not 
Jor any of Hs own, because He was without sin. The Spirit glorifies His, not 
as though He were Its inferior, but because It 15 His own Spirit. God the 
Eternal Word, brought forth out of the holy Virgin in flesh, and in time, has 
blessed the human race and has removed from it and human birth their former 
curse. The doctrine of this Letter 15 summed up at the end in Twelve Anath- 
emas against the errors contrary to it}. 


To the above summary of Contents I would add that I have followed in part 
only the summary of this Letter given by P. Εὖ. Pusey, in his ‘‘ Three Epistles of 
S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria,’’ page 59, but have brought out more fully 
certain points in the Letter which he blurs, because he did not, I think, hold to 
St. Cyril’s and the Universal Church’s do¢trine against Man-Service. 


Two things deserve to be noted on the magnificent and precious Long 
Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Synod of the Egyptian Diocese to 
Nestorius. They are: 


1. The Authority of the document itself. 


A. It was read and approved in the Third Ecumenical Council. On that 
point, Hefele in his H/7zstory of the Church Councils, English translation, Vol- 
ume III., page 48, after stating that it was read in the above place in its Act I., 
adds in Note 2 on the same page: 


200 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


‘To the Most Reverent (521) ana Most Dear-to-God Fellow- 
Minister Nestorius, Cyril and the Synod assembled in Alexandria, 
out of the Egyptian Diocese, wish joy in the Lord. 


‘“This is the Synodal letter to which the twelve anathematisms were ap- 
pended. We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms were read at 
Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the subject 
in the Atts. But in the fifth Ecumenical Council (Collatio VI.) it is said: 


‘Chalcedonensis sancta Synodus Cyrillum sanctae memoriae doctorem sibi 
adscribit et suscipit synodicas ejus epistolas, quarum uni 12 capitula supposita 
sunt’? (Mansi, t. ΙΧ p. 341, Hardouin, t. III., p. 167).’’’ [In English this 
is, ‘‘ The Holy Synod of Chalcedon calls Cyril of holy memory tts teacher 
and receives his Synodical Epistles, to one of which the XII. Chapters are 
annexed.” CHRYSTAL. Hefele goes on as follows]: ‘‘ If, however, the anath- 
ematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon, there was even more 
reason for doing so at Ephesus. And Ibas, in his well known letter to Maris, 
says expressly that the Synod of Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, 
and the same was asserted even by the Bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter 
to the Emperor, of which mention will hereafter be made in Sec[tion] 145 
(Hardouin, t. II., p. 530).’’ 

P. E. Pusey in his 7hree Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, 
Preface, page III., adds the important fact, 


‘‘The Council in the account sent by them to the Emperors of that memor- 
able day (Ib. [Coleti’s Comcilza, tome III.], col. 1100), say: ‘And first compar- 
ing the Letters on the Faith of the most pious and most holy Archbishop Cyril 
with this Exposition [the Nicene Creed], we found them consonant both in their 
doctrines and in their conceptions, and that his teaching was in nought estranged 
from that pious Exposition.’ ”’ 

B. The Fourth Ecumenical Council received that Epistle of Cyril as an 
authoritative Explanation of faith, and as a guide toit in making up its own 
decisions. On that P. E. Pusey as just cited adds: 


‘In the Second Action of the Council of Chalcedon (t. IV., col. 1212), 
the former Epistle to Nestorius, and the one to John of Antioch were read, the 
Council acclaiming its agreement therewith. By the acceptance therefore of 
this Council by the whole Church, the Letter to John of Antioch received, in 
addition to the two others, the Authority of the Church. In the fourth Action 
of this Council very many of the Bishops in giving their San¢ction to the Tome 
of Pope S. Leo, said that they did so because it agreed with the Nicene Creed 
and that of Constantinople, and what was settled by the Holy Cyril in the 
Council of Ephesus.’’ 

And the same Fourth Ecumenical Synod in its Definition testifies that: 

“ΤῸ has received the Synodal Letters of Cyril of blessed memory, Pastor of 
the Church of Alexandria, to Nestorius, and [that to] those of the East [as] 
being suitable for the refutation of the frenzied imaginations of Nestorius, and 
for the instruction of those who with godly zeal desire to understand the saving 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 207 


“TA] (522). Forasmuch as our Saviour plainly says: ‘/e that 
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he that 
loveth son or daughter more than me ἐξ not worthy of me (523); what 


faith’? (Hammond’s translation, page 96, New York edition of 1844). This 
includes therefore the Long Epistle to Nestorius; for only two of Cyril’s letters 
to Nestorius ever came before any Ecumenical Council, that is that and the 
shorter one which was approved by a vote in the Third Ecumenical Synod. 


And in conformity with custom each Ecumenical Council professes to 
receive every Ecumenical Council before itself. And so, before in this same 
Definition, the Fourth Synod says: 


‘‘We therefore preserving the order, and all the forms concerning the faith 
of the holy Synod, which formerly took place in Ephesus, of which Celestine 
of Rome, and Cyril of Alexandria of holy memory, were the leaders, declare,”’ 
etc. (Hammond’s translation in his Canons of the Church, page 95, New York 
edition of 1844). 


C. The Fifth Ecumenical Council accepted as Authoritative Cyril’s Long 
Epistle which has the XII. Chapters, 


In the same Preface of P. E. Pusey, mentioned above, he continues: 


“ The Two Letters to Nestorius’”’ [one of which is the Long One which has 
the XII. Chapters, CHRySTAL], ‘‘ were again read over in the Sixth Collation of 
the Fifth General Council, and recited as Authority. The Bishops said of the 
Letter attributed to Ibas, which they were condemning, Whoso receives it, 
receives not Cyril (Collatio VI., fin., τ. VI., col. 176). 


The former Letter to Nestorius as well as the latter’’ [that is the one with 
the XII. Chapters, CHRvSTAL], “was written by S. Cyril in Synod, as he him- 
self says of it (p. 16) that the Synod at Rome had approved the Letters writ- 
ten to thy Piety by the Church of the Alexandrians.”’ 


This same Fifth Council, in its Definition, accepts the Long Epistle of Cyril 
to Nestorius, and anathematizes those who wrote against it or its XII. Chapters. 
After speaking words of praise of Cyril of Alexandria and of the Third Council, 
and condemning Pope Vigilius for not doing his full duty against heresy, it 
professes to receive that Council and the Fourth, and what they defined, with- 
out mentioning.any exception, and condemns those who do not receive their 
doings, one of which is their approval of this Long Epistle of Cyril, and then 
condemns by name Theodoret’s and Ibas’ utterances and writings against the 
XII. Chapters which are at its end, and form part of it. I quote: 

‘We again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is the 
Nicaean, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, 
and we have preached and do preach those things which they have defined for 
the one and the same faith. 

Moreover, we judge those who do not receive those things to be aliens from 
the Universal Church. 

Moreover we condemn and anathematize * * * those things which 


208 Act I. of Ephesus. 


punishment should we suffer if we yielded to the demand of thy Piety 
to love thee more than the Anointed Saviour of us all (524)? If we 
do so, who will be able to profit us in the day of judgment? Or 
what sort of an apology shall we find, if we shall have so honored 


Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the Twelve 
Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first Synod of Ephesus,”’ etc. 


“ΤῊ addition to these, we also anathematize the impious Epistle which Ibas 
is said to have written to Maris the Persian, which * * * criminates Cyril 
of holy memory, who taught the truth, as a heretic, and as writing like Apolli- 
naris, and blames the first Synod of Ephesus as though it deposed Nestorius 
without examination and inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy 
Cyril impious and contrary to the right faith.”’ 


The same Council in its Anathemas XIII. and XIV. uses similar language 
again in favor of this Long Epistle of Cyril and of the XII. Chapters at its end, 
and anathematizes those who impugn it or them. But the place is too long to 
be quoted here. See it in Hammond. 


D. The Sixth Ecumenical Council in its Definition accepts the work of the 
Third Ecumenical Council and that of the Fourth, and Cyril’s Letters to Nes- 
torius of which that with the XII. Chapters is one, and the condemnation 
passed by the Fifth Synod against “the writings of Theodoret against the 
Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril and the Epistle which was said to be 
written by Ibas to Maris the Persian.”’ 


See it as on pages 142, 143 of Hammond’s Canons. The Sixth Synod 
there professes to follow the preceding five Synods, in all their utterances, and 
makes no exception. 

This Epistle, and the XII. Chapters which form part of it, are most clearly 
of Ecumenical Authority, and he who rejects them is therefore a heretic. We 
must then be on our guard against loose men who speak ill of them. The last 
Ecumenical Synods depose their rejectors if clerics, and anathematize them if 
laics. 

We come now, 2, fosay a few words as to the Text of the aforesaid Long 
Epistle of Cyril. 

As it was approved in the form read in the Third Council and in the Fourth 
only, we will follow that, as being the sole type sealed with Ecumenical 
authority. We will follow it as in Coleti, mainly 

(521). Or, “‘ most religious,” εὐλαβεστάτῳ. 

(522). These sections A to K inclusive are found in this Letter in Coleti 
Conc., tome 3, col. 944-956, though I have not met with them elsewhere; and for 
convenience sake, I have thought best to preserve them. 

(523). Mattox, 37- 

(524). The Greek at this point adds, ‘‘ and the rest [of the letter] just as τέ 
shines forth before’ [the A@s]. The Latin reads, ‘“dud zt [the Epistle] was 
vead just as it is above.’ I have preferred to give it here in its natural place, 
where it was read, not in the Forematter where it is now printed. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 209 


thee by long silence on the blasphemies (525) contrived (526) by 
thee against Him? And if thou, by holding and teaching such 
things, wert doing injury to thyself alone, there would be less rea- 
son to care. But inasmuch as thou hast put stumbling blocks in the 
way of all the Church, to cause it to stumble (527), and hast cast 
the leaven of an unusual and strange heresy among the people (528); 
and that not only among those there [in Constantinople where thou 
art], but among all everywhere, for thy Expository Books are in cir- 
culation; what sort of a reason would suffice for our longer silence? 
Or why is it not necessary to remember that the Anointed One (529) 
says: ‘ Think not that 7 came to send peace on the earth. I came not 
to send peace, but a sword. Forl came to set aman at variance against 
his father, and the daughter against her mother’ (530). For when 
wrong is done to the faith, let respect for parents disappear, for it is 
unseasonable and likely to cause men to fall; and moreover let the 
law of affection for children and brothers be still, and thenceforward 
let the godly deem death preferable to living, that, as it is written, 
‘they may obtain a better resurreciton’ (531). 


“[Β]. Behold, therefore, that we, together with the holy Synod 
which was collected in great Rome in which our most devout and 
most God-fearing brother and Fellow-Minister Celestine, the Bishop, 
was President (532), do hereby, even for the third time, by this Letter 


(525). Or, “‘the infamous utterances,’’ δυσφημίαις, 
(526). Greek, ταῖς παρὰ σοῦ γενομέναις κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ δυσφημίαις. 
(527). The Greek as in Coleti Conc., tome 3, col. 945, omits ‘‘a//,’’ and 


reads, translated, ‘“‘kast caused a Church to stumble,” or ‘‘hast scandalized a 
Church.’ 


(528). Or ‘‘ the congregations,’’ τοῖς λαοῖς, 
(529). That is Christ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


(530). Matt. x., 34, 25. 
(521). ‘Heb. x1:; 25. 


(532). προεδρεύοντος: that is, being Foresitter; that is, President. The above 
language with its context shows that the Letter of Celestine to Nestorius, read in 
the Third Synod just before this of Cyril to that heresiarch, was Synodal, that is 
the work of the Synod of the Roman Patriarchate, at which, as we know, 
Bishops not canonically of his Patriarchate were present at least in later times. 
For his Patriarchate did not include even all Italy as Bingham has shown. See 
his Antiquities, Book IX., Chap. I., Sections 9, etc., to the end of that chapter. 
In a Romish Diétionnaire des Conciles, published by Migne, a Council of Rome 
in A. D. 430 is mentioned; but, according to its editor, Celestine wrote the letter 
to Nestorius above mentioned at its close. Cyril, however, dwells on the fact of 
its being the utterance of the Council at Rome, because that of course would 
make it more authoritative than if it were the mere individual utterance of 
Celestine himself. So that, according to Cyril, the Orthodox party, though 


210 Act I. of Ephesus. 


protest against thee (533) and counsel thee to forsake those dogmas 
so sinister and perverted which thou holdest and teachest, and to 
choose instead the correct faith which has been handed down to the 


opposed by the Bishop of Constantinople and by some of his friends, neverthe- 
less entered the Third Ecumenical Synod with weighty documents in their 
favor, that is the Synodical utterance of Celestine and the Bishops of his Patri- 
archate, and with the Synodical utterance of Cyril of Alexandria and of his. 
Patriarchate, in the two Letters above read in the Synod; both of them condem- 
ning the errors of Nestorius and threatening him with excommunication. 


(533). Cyril and the Egyptian Synod here enter their solemn PROTEST 
against the creature-serving and Anti-Incarnation views of Nestorius. And this 
has always been the action of the Orthodox and Reforming party every where. 
All the Reformers of the sixteenth century though they lived in an age when 
they did not know the facts of primitive practice, nor the decisions of the Six 
Ecumenical Synods, as well as we do to-day, nevertheless did nobly in Protest- 
ing against the creature-service of the corrupt and apostate and worse than 
Nestorianized church of their time. For God, in effect, calls Himself a Profest- 
ant in the sense of opposing all idolatry and creature-service, and all disobedt- 
ence, when He speaks of Himself, in his anti-creature-serving Prophet Jeremiah 
as ‘‘ rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice,” (Jerem. xi., 7), in 
which connection he rebukes the idolatrous Jews for disobeying him in the very 
matter of idolatry and serving creatures. Furthermore, no man can be truly 
Orthodox who does not as intensely hate every form of those sins and the 
refuges of lies by which men attempt to excuse them, such as velative service, 
etc., and shun them, as God Himself does. The Third Ecumenical Synod 
speaks of the Nestorian bishops and their following as an “Afostasy,’’ for that 
very sin of relatively worshipping the perfect humanity of Christ. See its 
Canons, and see also the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod against 
that Man-Service. How much worse than the Nestorians are those who. 
relatively bow to the Virgin Mary, the angels, and saints, all of whom are 
creatures Jess than Christ’s humanity. How much worse still are those who 
worship images pictured or graven, crosses, relics, and other mere inanimate 
things. The doctrine of the Scriptures and of the Universal Church in the 
Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth is that all worship is prerogative to. 
Almighty God (Matt. iv,, το, and Luke iv., 8), and that it must all be direct to 
Him towards heaven where he is, not indirectly and in a roundabout way 
through any image of Him, like the golden calf in the wilderness or like the 
calves at Dan and at Bethel. For because of such relative worship of Him he 
was about to destroy guilty Israel in the wilderness, and because of it he gave 
the Ten Tribes to wasting, to poverty, to slaughter and to captivity. See on this 
whole topic, Exodus xxxii., Psalm cvi., 19-24; Nehemiah ix., 18, and I. Kings 
xii., 25, toI. Kings xiii., 6, and 11. Kings xxiii., 15-21, and 11. Kings xvii., I-41 
inclusive, and Isaiah xlii.,8, and Isaiah x]viii.,11, and those many passages where, 
with reference to such sins, he calls Himself Jealous,and Ezekiel viii., 3, 5; Exod. 
XxXxii., 16,21; I. Kings xiv., 1-31, inclusive, Deut. xxix., 17-29; Psalm Ixxvi.,, 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 211 


Churches from the beginning through the holy Apostles and Evan- 
gelists, who were also eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word 


58; Ezek. xvi., 38, and the context which is directed against the spzrziual harlotry 
of worshipping images and mere things and persons other than God, and see in 
the Concordances many more passages under Jealous, Jealousy, Idols, etc. 


I would add that the common appellation of the Church and the faith from 
the beginning has been Christian, and Catholic, Καθολική, that is Universal, and 
Orthodox; but as to the individual Christian, the custom in the East as to day 
has ever been to call him Orthodox (Ὀρθόδοξος) that is rightly believing, but in 
the West Catholic is used in the sense of Orthodox. In the Fourth Ecumenical 
Council we shall find the Bishops shouting out regarding a sound thing, ‘‘ 7hzs 
is the faith of the Orthodox.’? As no man can be called Universal, the Greeks 
have never been wont to call a man a Catholic, that is a Universal, for the word 
καθολικός, that is Catholic, is Greek, and was understood; whereas in Latin it 
was at first a foreign word, and so was applied to an individual not in the sense 
of Universal but of Orthodox, that is a member of the Universal Church. 

But how shall we regard the term Protestant ? 

I answer that it has two meanings, one original and conservative, and the 
other later and anarchizing. In the original sense, as used of the English 
Reforming Prelates it meant one who imitated God and his faithful servants 
Elijah, Hezekiah, etc., in protesting against all creature worship and image-wor- 
ship and so agreed with the Six Councils of the whole Church, and professed to 
respect the authority and doctrine, as in the Homily against Peril of Idolatry, 
of ‘those Six Councils which were allowed and received of all men,”’ in other 
words it was applied to men who aimed, like the Jewish Reformers under the 
Old Testament, to restore all that had fallen into desuetude during the fall into 
idolatry, though they did not understand some facts in the matter as we do 
now, for on some points we have fuller information than they had. 


The second sense of Protestant is later and anarchizing, and siguifies a 
person who has no respect for the authority of the Universal Church, and 
indeed is so ignorant that he generallyconfounds it with Rome, and its idolatry, 
which is condemned by necessary implication in the Six Councils of the 
Undivided Church, and believes that he may take the Bible in his own ignorant 
and heretical sense as his empty noddle may suggest; the result of which is 
that there are about 240 such kinds of Protestant Sects in England and about 
120 in our land. As tothe Bible and the Sound Church, we must remember 
not to put asunder what God has joined together in His Word, for the Universal 
Church is the God-appointed interpreter of Holy Writ. 


I would add that the Orthodox have in past ages been called by different 
names, such as Homoousiasts (see under ὁμοουσιαστῆς in Sophocles’ Greek 
Lexicon), Two-Natureites, etc., and as they are now called, Protestants, but 
the Church ever remains Catholic, and Orthodox, and only such as are Protestant 
in the first sense above accora with it. Part of it may be called as in the above 
Epistle, the Church of Alexandria or of the Alexandrians, the Church of the 
Romans, the Church of the Constantinopolitans ; or we may add, the Church 


‘ 


212 Act I. of Ephesus. 


(534). Or, if thy Piety will not do that before the day specified in 
the Letter of the aforesaid most devout and most God-fearing brother, 
our Fellow-Minister, Celestine, Bishop of the Church of the Romans 
(535), [then] know [hereby] that thou wilt have no lot with us, nor 
place nor reckoning among the Priests of God and Bishops (536). 


‘‘For it is not permitted us to disregard the Churches which are 
so disturbed, and the peoples who have been made to stumble, and 
the faith which is set aside, and the flocks which are scattered by 
thee, and which thou oughtest to preserve, if indeed thou wert like 
us, a lover of correct opinion, and a follower of the godly path of 
the holy Fathers. Moreover, we all commune with all both laics 
and clerics, who have been separated or deposed by thy Piety on 
account of their attachment to the faith. For it is not just that 
those who have known how to hold right opinions should be wronged 
by thy decisions, on account of their having done well by speaking 
in opposition to thee. For thou hast indicated that very thing in 
the letter written by thee to our most holy Fellow-Bishop, Celestine 
of the great Rome. And it will not suffice that thy Piety co-confess 


of England, or of Ireland, etc., but it should never bear the name Protestant 
Episcopal, for that displaces the name of the Church in the Creed to which we 
all profess to belong. 

The Unreformed Communions are called by different names also, such as 
Latins, Papists, Romanists, Greeks, etc. 

It isa remarkable fact, in itself a witness for the idea of the Universal 
Church as the sole final teacher, that though it broke into two parts in the 
ninth or eleventh century, and parts of it have reformed since, yet none of the 
parts, Greek, Latin, Anglican, or any other professes to believe in any other than 
the ‘‘ One Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church”? whose sole utterances, it 
should be added, are in the Six Councils. 

I have spoken of the term Protestant as being taken in two senses. Iought 
to add that Catholic is taken inmore. For the Latin so understands it, as to 
leave the Greek out in the cold as a schismatic and heretic and as lost. which 
compliment the Greek returns with interest by calling him not only a heretic 
and schismatic but unbaptized and unordained and lost. 


And the Anglican in his Formularies, and in the Homilies approved by his 
Thirty Fifth Article brands both as idolaters, and so as incapable of salvation. 

Besides the Nestorian has his own perversion of the term and the Monophy- 
site his. 

The same thing may be said as to the differences on the word Orthodox. 

But after all there is no Catholicity or Orthodoxy without the Six Councils 
ofthe Undivided Church or contrary to them or to any of their decisions. 


(534). Lukei., 2, and Actsi., 20-23. 
(535). I have followed here the Greek text in Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 945, 
(536). Or ‘‘among God’s Priests and Bishops.”’ 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 213 


the Symbol of the Faith only, which Symbol was put forth in due time, 
in the Holy Spirit by the holy and sreat Synod collected aforetime 
in the city of the Nicaeans. For thou hast understood and inter- 
preted it not rightly, but rather pervertedly, although thou professest 
with thy voice the wording. Accordingly thou art to confess in 
writing and on oath that thou anathematizest on the one hand thy 
own foul and profane dogmas (537), and on the other that thou wilt 
hold and teach those things which we all also do, I mean, we the 
Bishops and teachers, and leaders of the people throughout the West 
and the East. And the holy Synod in Rome, and all of us, have 
agreed that the Letters written to thy Piety by the Church of the 
Alexandrians are correct and irreprehensible (538). And we have 
subjoined to this our Letter, what things thou oughtest both to hold 
and to teach, and what things it is becoming to abstain from. For 
the following is the faith of the Universal and Apostolic Church, 
which faith all the Orthodox Bishops in the West and in the East 
co-praise, namely: 

“TC]. ‘WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, 
MAKER OF ALL VISIBLE AND OF ALL INVISIBLE THINGS. 


‘AND IN ONE LORDJESUS ANOINTED, THE SON OF GOD, BORN 
OUT OF THE FATHER, SOLE-BORN THAT IS OUT OF THE SUBSTANCE 
OF THE FATHER, GOD oUT OF GOD, LIGHT OUT OF LIGHT, VERY 
GOD OUT OF VERY GoD, BORN NOT MADE, OF THE SAME SUB- 
STANCE WITH THE FATHER; THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS WERE 
MADE, BOTH THOSE IN THE HEAVEN AND THOSE ON THE EARTH, 
WHO FOR US MEN, AND FOR OUR SALVATION, CAME DOWN, AND 
TOOK ON FLESH, AND PUT ON A MAN, SUFFERED, AND ROSE UP ON 
THE THIRD DAY, WENT UP INTO THE HEAVENS, AND (539) COMETH 


(537). Strong language to apply to Nestorius’ denial of the Incarnation 
and to his creature-service, but not stronger than John applies to the former sin 
in II. John 7-12; and than God Himself applies to all creature service again and 
again in his Word. What can be a plainer prohibition of service to Christ’s 
separate humanity, than His own language in Matt. iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8? 


(538). This includes all of Cyril’s Epistles to him before this, one of which 
was the short Letter approved in Act I. of Ephesus by vote. But if the notes of 
time given in Migne’s Dictionnaire des Conciles, and in the article on Cyril of 
Alexandria in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, be exact, 
there does not seem to have been enough time between the date of the Council of 
Alexandria which approved Cyril’s long letter to Nestorius which has the XII. 
Chapters, to go to Rome and to get back before the date of the presentation of 
this letter, that is Nov. 30, or Dec. 7, 430, so that it is not included. Indeed the 
words above have reference to what had been approved when it was written. 
Yet as the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth formally approved it, it has 
Ecumenicity in the fullest sense. 

(539). The ‘and,’ is not in Coleti Conc., tome 3, col. 948. 


214 Act I. of Ephesus. 


TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD; AND [WE BELIEVE] IN THE 
HoLy GuHost. 


‘MOREOVER, THE UNIVERSAL AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH ANATH- 
EMATIZES THOSE WHO SAY THAT THERE WAS ONCE WHEN THE SON 
oF GOD WAS NOT, AND THAT BEFORE HE WAS BORN HE WAS NOT, 
AND THAT HE WAS MADE OUT OF THINGS NOT EXISTING, OR WHO 
ASSERT THAT HE IS OF SOME OTHER SUBSISTENCE OR SUBSTANCE 
[than the Father], AND THAT HE IS MUTABLE OR CONVERTIBLE.’ 


‘‘ Following everywhere (540) the confessions of the holy Fathers 
which they made, the Holy Spirit speaking in them (541), and track- 
ing out and following the aim of the thoughts in them, and advanc- 
ing even as by a royal way, we assert that the very Sole-Born Word 
of God, Who was born out of the Substance of the Father Itself, the 
very God out of very God, the Light out of the Light, He through 
Whom all things were made, both those in the heaven and those on 
the earth, came down for our salvation, and lowered (542) himself 
to be made of no reputation, and took flesh, and put on a man, that 
is having taken flesh out of the holy Virgin, and having made it His 
own from the womb, He underwent that birth, which is like ours, 
and came forth a Man out of a woman, yet did not cast away what 
He was before; for although He was in that taking of flesh and blood, 
nevertheless, even so, He remained what He was, that is God in 
Nature and in truth. But we neither say that the flesh has been 
changed into the Nature of Divinity, nor on the other hand that the 
ineffable Nature of God the Word has been changed into the nature 
of flesh (543). For the Same One ever remains, according to the 
Scriptures, unchangeable and entirely inconvertible. And even 
when he was visible as a babe in swaddling clothes, and yet on the 
bosom of the Virgin who brought Him forth, He was, nevertheless, 


(540). Or, ““75 every respect.’’ The Greek is πανταχῆ. 


(541). This follows from such promises to the continuous Apostolate as Matt. 
xxviii., 20; John xiv., 16-19; John xvi., 13; and 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16 (for the Church 
teaching is the Apostolate, Matt. xxviii., 19, 20). Their power to bind and loose, 
given to them exclusively, is in Matt. xviii., 15-19; John xx., 23; 1 Cor. v., 3-6; 
If, Cor: 11:, 1-12: 


(542). Or, ‘‘abased himself.” 


(543). This utterance, of course, condemns Apollinarianism, and Mono- 
physitism, its daughter heresy; and zecessarily implies a belief in the Orthodox 
doctrine of the Two Natures after their union, because if each remains, as he 
here plainly teaches, unchanged and what it was, of course there still remain 
two unchanged Natures. So in passage after passage elsewhere Cyril speaks of 
the Two Natures after their Union as God the Word and the humanity which 
He put on. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestortus. 215 


as God, filling all the creation (544), and was Co-Sitter with Him 
who brought Him forth (545). For the Divinity is unquantitied 
and unsized, and admits not of being confined to any bounds or 
limits (546). 


[D]. Moreover, confessing that the Word has been Substancely 
(547) united to the flesh, we bow to [but] (548) one Son and Lord, Jesus 
Anointed, and we do not put apart and put boundaries between the 
man and God, (549) on the ground that they have been co-joined 
with each other in a union of dignity and authority, for that is 
[mere] empty talk and nothing else. Nor, moreover, do we name 


(544). Does this language of Cyril teach that God is everywhere dy Hits 
Substance or by his attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence? 
I answer, It can not be understood of the Substance of God, for no one will assert 
that It fills the same space which our substance occupies, the substance occu- 
pied by heathen images, and by ash-barrels, and garbage, and water-closets, and 
the yilest places which, out of reverence, I will not mention. We must then 
make a broad distinction between the Swdstance of God and his attributes. His 
Substance has its limits, and so far as we know is in heaven alone, where alone 
Christ teaches us to pray to It, Our Father who art in heaven, where alone the 
Substance of the Logos and the Holy Ghost are. But by His infinite attributes 
of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, He is everywhere to see, to 
know, and to sway. 


(545). That is with the Father, out of Whom He came. 


(546). We must not understand by this that Cyril was a Pantheist, or that 
the Universal Church approved Pantheism by making God’s Substance omni- 
present, and to fill all things, or that the Substance of the Divinity can not be 
quantitied, sized, and limited to heaven for instance, by God himself, even when 
He is everywhere uot by His divine Substance but by His infinite attributes of 
omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence; but only that we cannot quantity 
or size God’s substance or prescribe the bounds in which alone It shall move 
and be. 

(547). Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν; that is, by His [divine] Substance. Cyril 
explains in this same Section D, atthe end, the Union to be like the union of soul 
and body in man, that is not exactly the same of course, but so that they are 
one, the difference between God and man being preserved of course. 

(548). Greek, Ἡνῶσθαί ye μὴν σαρκὶ kal’ ὑπόστασιν ὁμολογοῦντες τὸν Λόγον, ἕνα 
προσκυνοῦμεν Υἱὸν καὶ Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. It is noteworthy that St. Cyril here 
bases all bowing to the Son, that is all worship to Him, for bowing is the most 
common of the acts of worship and stands for all of them, on the fact that the 
Divinity of the Logos is there. This is strikingly in accordance with Anathema 
VIII. in this Epistle towards the end. See there. 

(549). That is, God the Word. Nestorius put a vast space between the Man 
and the Word, during his Incarnation on earth, for the Man, according to him, 
was on earth, whereas the Word was in heaven, 


216 Act I. of Ephesus. 


the Word who came out of God, Anointed, by Himself, and the Man 
who came out of the Virgin, Anointed by Himself in like manner; 
but we know only one Anointed, the Word who came out of the God 
and Father, within His own flesh (550). For then was he Anointed 
as man, as we are, although He Himself gives the Spirit to those 
who are worthy to receive it; and [He was anointed], as the blessed 
Evangelist John says, ot by measure (551). But we do not say that 


(550). Greek, μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, This may also be rendered “ with His 
own flesh,” but not in such a sense as to imply any co-worship of the flesh with 
the Divinity. For Andrew of Samosata says plainly that Cyril forbade the flesh 
to be co-bowed to with the Divinity. See his language quoted on page 97 above, 
in the note, and Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., which was approved by 
the Third Council, and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Council, and note 183, pages. 
79 to 128, and notes 580, 581 and 582 below. See also Vol. I. of Nicaea in this. 
Set under Economic Appropriation, Creature-Service, Relative-Worship, Man- 
Worship, Arius, Bowing, Invocation of Saints, Eucharist and Real Presence. 


(551). John ili., 34. 

Cyril of Alexandria in his Address “οὔ the Right Faith to Arcadia and 
Marina,” explains the anointing in the expression in Hebrews i., 9, God, even 
thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, of Christ’s. 
humanity; see the Greek on page 193 of Part I., Vol. VII. of Cyril’s Works, P. 
E. Pusey’s edition. Cyril there writes, ‘‘ 4s God He creates angels, but as Man 
He is anointed,’ χρίεται δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωπος. To refer that anointing to God the Word. 
is in accordance with the doctrine of Appropriating everything of His humanity 
as well as everything of His Divinity to God the Word. 


Cyril states the same do@trine at the end of his work, ‘‘7hat Christ is One” 
(page 423 of Part I., Vol. VII. of Cyril’s Works, Ῥ. E. Pusey’s edition). I quote, 
‘“We believe therefore that the Son of the God and Father is [only] One, and 
that our Lord Jesus the Anointed is to be thought of as in [but] One Person, 
who as regards His Divinity was born out of the God and Father as the Word 
(Λόγον) before every world and time, and that He, the Same One, was born in 
the last times of the world in flesh out of a woman, and to Him we ascribe both 
the God-befitting and the human things, and we assert that to Him belong the 
birth in flesh and the suffering on the cross, for he has Appropriated to Himself 
all the things of His own flesh, but has nevertheless remained impassible in the 
Nature of His Divinity. For so bends to Him every knee: and every tongue 
shall confess that Jesus Anointed is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philip. 
11 τὴ.» 

Because the anointing of Christ’s humanity is Economically ascribed to. 
God the Word we find in Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius, Se&tion 11, the Word 
spoken of as ‘‘our God Anointed,” that is, ‘‘our Anointed God.” See, for the 
Greek, note 506 above, on page 202. It is strange how much forgotten this doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation isin our day. See on it, page 74, note 173, 
and page 79, note 182, above. See also in Vol. I. of Wicaea in this Set, in Index 
1., under Economic Appropriation, where we see, as in the last references above, 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 217 


the Word who came out of God dwelt in the Man born out of the 
holy Virgin, as in a common man, lest Anointed (552) be deemed 
[merely] an inspired man (553). For although the Word fabernacled 
among us (554) and although ‘all the fulness of the Divinity’ (555) is 
said to have ‘dwelt bodily in Anointed’ (556), yet we understand by all 
that only that He was made flesh, but we do not define that that 
indwelling in him (557) was made in the same manner in which He 
[the Word] is said to have dwelt in the saints, but that [the Word] 
having been united as respects His [Divine] Nature (558) [to the 
Man put on], and not having been turned into flesh, effected that 
indwelling [in the man] in such a way as the soul of a man may be 
said to dwell in its own body (559). 


[E]. Anointed and Son and Lord is therefore One, not, how- 
ever, that a Man has a mere [external] conjunction with God as in a 
unity of dignity that is of authority; for equality of honor could not 
unite the atures (560); for example, Peter and John were of equal 


that St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria wisely held that the dodtrine is 
necessary to avoid Man-Worship, ἀνθρωπολατρεία, as the Definition of the Fifth 
Synod calls it, that is the Worship of Christ’s humanity, a noble creature, the 
highest of all mere creatures, but, nevertheless, a mere creature, and therefore 
not worshippable, for Christ so teaches in Matt. iv., το. So St. Athanasius 
teaches on page Ioo of this Vol. I. of Aphesus in the note. 


(552). That is ‘‘ Christ,’? which means “‘Anointed.”’ 

(553). Θεοφόρος ἄνθρωπος. 

(554). Johni., 14. 

(555). Greek, τῆς θεότητοα, 

(556). That isin Christ’s humanity; Col. il. 9. 

(557). Greek, τὴν κατοίκησιν, that is in the Man. 

(558). Greek, ἑνωθεὶς κατὰ φύσιν. 

(559). The Natures are united like one Person, though, of course as Cyril 
teaches, the Word remains God, and the Man, Man. 

(560). Or, ‘‘ does not unite the natures,’ ov yap Evoi τὰς φύσεις ἡ ἰσοτιμία,. The 
word évoi may be found in both the indicative present and in the optative present. 
Notice the plural ‘‘ the Natures,’ τὰς φύσεις. Here Cyril and the Council of 
Ephesus use the very expression approvingly and, as a matter of course, against 
which the Monophysites afterwards so much kicked; and which they so wrongly 
reject, even while professing to receive all the decisions of this Third Ecumen- 
ical Synod. They are either ignorant of the use of the expression here, or if 
they do knowit, they are dishonest in professing to receive all that was approved 
by this Synod, and yet at the same time reject this Decision on the Two Natures. 

If they attempt to limit Cyril’s use of it to the time before their union, I 
reply that Cyril’s language in this very document necessarily implies that the 
Two Natures still exist though united like one Person, for, in places elsewhere 


218 Act I. of Ephesus. 


honor, forasmuch as they were Apostles and holy disciples (561); but, 
nevertheless, the two were not one; nor, furthermore, do we under- 
stand the manner of the conjunction to be that of placing the TWO 
NATURES BESIDE EACH OTHER (562), for that is not sufficient for a 
nature union; nor, moreover, do we deem it to have been as by 
RELATIVE PARTICIPATION (563), as we, [for instance], being 


noted, he confesses that they remain unchanged. And of course, if they remain 
unchanged, they are Two Natures still, as all fair-minded men can see at once 
without any argument. 

(561). Here Cyril confesses the equality as Apostles of John and Peter. 
And this language is approved by the Third Synod. This impliedly condemns 
the Roman dogma of their inequality. Peter was only the first among his 
equals; primus inter pares. Though Peter was first, yet, as he was rebuked for 
his error at Antioch by his fellow Apostle Paul (Galat. ii., 11-21), so was Peter’s 
Roman successor, Vigilius, by the Fifth Ecumenical Council—Aye, his Roman 
successor, Honorius, was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical 
Council See note 94, page 39 above. 

(562). Greek, κατὰ παράθεσιν, that is, by juxtaposition. 

On Nature Union, ἕνωσιν φυσικήν, in the next line below the above, see page 
65 of this volume, note. 

(563). Greek, ὡς κατὰ μέθεξιν σχετικῆν. 

By that expression the Nestorians meant, first, that the humanity of the 
Son shared, with other good men, only in a fuller measure, the sanctifying influ- 
ences of the Spirit which is related to the Logos as being His Spirit, and that as a 
consequence of that sanctifying, that mere humanity, a mere creature, came to 
share the rank, the dignity, the name, and the worship of God the Word, in 
direct contradiction to Christ’s prohibition of all creature-worship in Matthew 
iv., 10. Seeon all the Nestorian heresies on the Union, note 156, pages 61-69 
of this volume, and especially, on the expression in the text above, pages 61, 62, 
63, 64, and 65, where the Nestorian sense of Relative-Sharing and Relative- 
Union is explained by St. Cyril; and pages 67-69 where their sequence of Rel- 
ative-Worship of Christ’s humanity, that is the Nestorian Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπο- 
λατρέια) is explained by Cyril and by a Nestorian Creed which was condemned 
in the Third Council. That Nestorian Man-Worship is constantly denounced 
by St. Cyril. I would add that in all those texts where the Holy Ghost is called 
Christ’s Spirit (Rom. viii., 9; Philip. i.,9, and I. Peter i., 11), and the Spzrit of 
the Son (Galat.iv.,6),Whom He sends (John xv., 26, and John xvi., 7), Cyril and 
the Third Council with him understood the Spirit of the Logos, even that Spzrvzt 
Which goeth out of the Father (John xv., 26), Which is given by Him (John xiv., 
16), and is also sent by Him (John xiv., 26, and Galat. iv., 6), and is therefore 
spoken of as His Spirit (Galat. iv., 6), though the Spirit is the Vicar of Christ 
under the New Dispensation of the Spirit (John xiv., 16-19, 26; John xv., 26, and 
John xvi., 7-16. Compare II. Cor. iii., 8). 

I wish here to notice a perversion of Pusey on the word relative (oyetexjy), in 
this expression. In order, I fear, to do away with the evidence of this word 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 219 


‘joined unto the Lord,’ as it is written, ‘ave one spirit’ with Him 
(564); aye more we avoid the term Conjunétion on the ground 
that it does not suffice to express the union (565).  Further- 
more, we do not name the Word Who came out of God the Father, 
either God of the Anointed One (566) or Master (567), of the Anointed 


against the Relative-Worship (σχετικὴ προσκύνησις), of the Greek Church, and of 
the Latin, of images, relics, etc., he translates it ‘external,’ so that he renders 
the whole expression above ‘‘ 7m the way of an external participation,” page 63 
of his translation in his Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. 
But in looking at the term σχετικός in Liddell and Scotts Greek Lexicon, Sixth 
Edition, Revised and Augmented, Oxford, A. D. 1869, I do not find ‘‘ external”? 
given among its meanings, nor do I find that signification in Sophocles’ Greek 
Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Boston, A. D. 1870, nor does it 
express the exact and literal meaning here. In Liddell and Scott’s the second 
meaning given is, ‘‘in Eccl. writers, relative.” That is the meaning here. 
“They add, ‘‘zon-essential, accidental,” but neither of those terms fits the con- 
text nor Cyril’s common use of σχετίκός in such connections. The Latins rightly 
render the Greek σχετική προσκύνησις by Relativa Adoratio, that is Peelative- Wor- 
ship. In Migne’s Maigne d’Arnis’ Lexicon Manuale ad Scriptores Medtiae et 
Infimae Latinitatis, 1 find Relativus defined as follows: ‘‘Relationem habens 
ad alterum; relatif;”’ that is “‘ having a relation to another; velative.’’ Itis the 
only meaning there given for that word. If the term σχετικός ever means ‘‘70n- 
essential, accidental,” it is rather in philosophy than in theology. 

(sos). τον: vi.,17- 

(565). Cyril means that the term conjunction (συνάφεια) which the Nesto- 
rians used to express their heresy of a mere external conjunction of God the 
Word with His humanity does not suffice to express the full sense of the Ortho- 
dox Scriptural Union which teaches that God the Word actually took on Him 
that Man in Mary’s womb, and has indwelt him ever since. The Nestorian 
doétrine of a mere external conjunction of Christ’s humanity, a mere creature, 
in a unity of dignity and authority with the uncreated God the Word is mere 
blasphemy, as Cyril again and again teaches. So is a mere conjunction of Jux- 
taposition, and so is a relative participation, for no creature, not even the high- 
est of all creatures, Christ’s own spotless and perfect humanity, can share the 
dignity, the authority and the worship of Almighty God the Word; but the 
Nestorians said that that Man, that mere creature could, and are therefore justly 
termed Man-Worshippers (ἀνθρωπολᾶτραι) and creature-worshippers (κτισματολᾶ- 
tpat). Inother words Nestorianism ended in one Jewish heresy, denial of the In- 
carnation of God the Word; and in the great pagan heresy of worshipping a mere 
creature relatively. Hence not only the Third Council but the Fifth also con- 
demns its Man-Worship, the former in the Eighth Anathema of St. Cyril approved 
by it, and the latter in its Ninth Anathema, and in the Definition of which it 
forms part. See on that whole matter of Man-Worship, note 183, pages 79-128, 
above. As to Nestorian heresies on the Union see note 156, pages 61-69. 

(566). Greek, tov Χριστοῦ. 

(567). Greek, δεσπότην. This term though often rendered Lord means 


220 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


One, lest we clearly cut the one Anointed, and Son, and Lord (568) 
into two, and fall into the crime of blasphemy, by making Him God 
of Himself and Master (569) of Himself. For, as we have said 
before, the Word of God having been united to flesh by His Sub- 
stance (570) is [nevertheless] God of the universe, and Master of 
every man (571), and He is neither slave (572) to Himself, nor Mas- 
ter (573) to Himself. For even to think or say so, would be silly, 
aye rather even impious. For although He Himself, being God by 
Nature, and out of the Father’s Substance, did say that the Father 
was His God (574), nevertheless we are not ignorant that while 
He was God, He was also made a man who was (575) under 
God, in accordance with that law [of subjection to God], which 
befits the nature of the humanity. But how could He be made 
God of Himself or Lord of Himself? Therefore, as man, and so 
far as befitted the condition of one who had made Himself of no 
reputation (576), He says that He Himself, with us, is under God 
(577). So He was made under the law also (578), although He 
Himself uttered the Law, and was [the] Law-giver, forasmuch as 
He is God (579). 


properly Master. Cyril just below uses its correlative term ‘“‘slave’’ (δοῦλος), 
which is often rendered servant in the King James’ Version. 

(568). Greek, Κύριον. 

(569). Greek, δεσπότην. 

(570). Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν. 

(571). Greek, δεσπόζει. . . τοῦ παντός. 

(572). Greek, δοῦλός. 

(573). Greek, δεσπότης. 

(574). Matt. xxvii., 46. 

(575). Or, ‘‘ Subject to God,’ καὶ ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν ὁ ὑπὸ Θεῷ. 

(576). Philip. ii., 7, literally, ‘“‘and so far as befitted the measures of the 
emptying.” 

(577). Thatis, ‘subject to God,” ὑπὸ Θεῷ. 

(578). Galat.iv.,4. Greek, ὑπὸ νόμον. 

(579). I donot understand from this whether Cyril means that the Logos 
was in the Father, and so acted with Him in giving the Law to Moses, or 
whether he means that God the Word acted alone as the Lawgiver as the Repre- 
sentative of the Father to Moses and to Israel. On the manifestations before 
the Law and under it see note 309, page 231, Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Series, 
and Passage 3 quoted from St. Athanasius on pages 222-225. On pages 222-236, 
Athanasius argues, as in the third Passage, that religious bowing belongs to God 
alone, and that therefore wherever it is given under the Old Testament toa 
seeming angel, he was really the Logos. So he reasons on page 240, 241, 242. 
So St. Epiphanius writes on page 242, 243, 244, 245, 246. So Faustin well argues 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 221 


‘“TR]. Furthermore, WE DECLINE To SAY OF ANOINTED, ‘/ wor- 
ship him who is worn’ [the mere man put on by the Word], ‘for the sake 
of Him’ [the Word] ‘Who wears him. I bow to him who ts seen’ 
[the mere Man] ‘on account of Him’ [the Word] ‘who zs unseen;’ and 
it is A HORRIBLE THING, to say also, in addition to that, 

«276 who ἐς taken’ [the mere man] “ἦς co-called God with Him [the 
Word] ‘who has taken him’ (580). For he who says those things 


on page 251. It is of fundamental importance and absolutely necessary to 
Orthodoxy and to salvation that we always maintain the teaching of Athanasius 
and the primitive Fathers that whenever any seeming angel, or seeming man, 
appeared in the Old Testament and either demanded or received any act of wor- 
ship, from God’s sound servants, be it bowing, prostration, prayer, or any other, 
he must have been God, because, as they reason, all acts of religious service are 
prerogative to God alone, and therefore can not be given to any creature. Cyril 
may in this case have gone farther, and where there was no appearance of a 
seeming angel or man, may have meant to teach that the Lawgiver of Sinai was 
not the Father but His Coeternal and Consubstantial Word. Indeed his words 
above seem to show that he took that view. 

(580). Greek, Παραιτούμεθα δὲ λέγειν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ, “ Διὰ τὸν Φοροῦντα τὸν φορού- 
μενον σέβω, διὰ τὸν ᾿Αόρατον προσκυνῶ τὸν ὁρώμενον," φρικτὸν δὲ πρὸς τούτῳ κἀκεῖνο εἰπεῖν 
(Ὁ ληφθεὶς τῷ Λαβόντι συγχρηματίζει Θεός." This Nestorianism is plainly the same 
in principle as that which now prevails in all the creature-serving Communions, 
the Roman, the Greek, the Monophysite, and the Nestorian; that is, it 15 ve/wtzve- 
worship. The worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is, beyond all suc- 
cessful cavil, a worship of a part of His humanity, and is anathematized, by 
necessary implication, in Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., andin Anathema 
IX. of the Fifth Synod, exists in the Roman; and other forms of relative wor- 
ship, relative that is to God, exist in all the rest of those Communions, in the 
form of cross-service by kissing, etc., and in the form of kissing, burning lights, 
incensing, kneeling, prostration, bowing, etc., to pictured images of the Father, 
Son, or Spirit, to altars, communion tables, and the Bible, in the Greek, the 
Roman, and Monophysite, and of all these and of graven images in the Roman. 


Aye, worship, velative even to mere saints, angels, archangels, and the 
Virgin Mary, is found in all those communions, except as to images only in the 
Nestorian, in the form of kissing their images, bowing to them, burning lights 
to them, incensing them, etc., their relics, etc. The Latins bow also to altars 
of the Virgin, and of St. Joseph. 

Furthermore, direct worship is paid to creatures in all those communions, 
which, however, is occasionally put on the ground of worship to them for the 
sake of God; that is, such paganizers claim that it is done relatively to God. 

On the whole topic of the condemnation of the worship of the separate 
humanity of Christ by the Ecumenical Councils, see note 156, pages 61-69, 
above, and note 173, pages 74-76, and note 183, pages 79-128. On page 120, the 
very language of Nestorius above is quoted. See also notes 581, 582 below, and, 
on Relative worship, note 156, page 61. 


222 Act I. of Ephesus. 


cuts [the Son] again into two Anointeds, and places the Man sepa- 
rately by himself, and God [separately by Himself] in like manner. 
For, confessedly, he denies the [true] Union, in accordance with the 
doétrine of which [Union] NO ONE IS CO-BOWED-TO (581) AS ONE 


St. Cyril treats of the above plain confession of Man-Worship by Nestorius 
and denounces that error and sin again and again. I refer to some of the places 
in the Oxford (P. E. Pusey’s?) English translation of ‘.S. Cyril of Alexandria 
on the Incarnation Against Nestorius,” but at the same time warn the reader 
that that translation is not always exact, for if it was done by P. E. Pusey, it 
should be said that he was only a layman, not a theologian, and was the son of 
the notorious heresiarch and idolatrizer E. B. Pusey, and that it should be read 
with caution as that of a suspect. But whoever was the translator, it should be 
compared with the original where he translates passages of St. Cyril which con- 
demn the Nestorianized views of the editor, E. B. Pusey, in favor of creature- 
worship and of the worship of an alleged Real Presence of Christ’s body and 
blood in the Eucharist. Some part of P. E. Pusey’s translation on such themes 
is positively wrong. I would recommend therefore the reader who can to 
examine the original Greek always. 

Especially would I warn against Pusey’s failure to bring out sufficiently in 
his translation the difference between St. Cyril’s profession of worshipping “ the 
Word within His flesh,” or at least ‘‘zith His flesh’’ (μετὰ σαρκός), in such a 
sense as not to co-worship His flesh with His Divinity, and his condemnation of 
the error of ‘‘co-worshipping the flesh with the Divinity.’? See on that the 
language of Andrew of Samosata as quoted in the note on page 97 above. Com- 
pare Nestorius’ language in the Eighth and the Fourteenth of his Twenty Pas- 
sages below as read in Act I. of the Third Synod. 

Another mistranslation of P. E. Pusey, and a very bad one is his rendering 
of θεοφόρον ἄνθρωπον, as for instance in St. Cyril’s Anathema V. towards the end 
of the above Epistle and elsewhere by ‘‘ God-clad man.’’ See on that P. E. 
Pusey’s Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, page 68 com- 
pared with page 36. From that rendering no man can understand Cyril’s 
meaning, there and insuch places. It should be ‘‘zuspired man.’’ It bears on 
the doctrine of the Incarnation. 

So he constantly mistranslates Θεοτόκος, Bringer-Forth-of-God, by Mother 
of God, as though it were ἡ Μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, an expression not authorized by the 
Third Council. The two expressions are not exactly the same in sense, as will 
be shown elsewhere. The old Latins rendered Θεοτόκος exaQly by Dezpara. 
But it was like the Latinizer and mediaevalizer Pusey to prefer the mediaeval] 
and modern J/other of God to the exact translation of the expression used by 
the Holy-Ghost-led Synod, Bringer-forth-of-God. ἘΣ. B. Pusey, in his scoun- 
drelly Eirenicon in his desire to Romanize and idolatrize the Anglican Church 
actually favors image-wership and the invocation of saints. See pages 105-108, 
of Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Series. Alas! alas! the tendency of much better 
men than the traitor Pusey has resulted in doing away in the Anglican Commun- 
ion the ancient and apostolic trine dipping, which it had retained till some time 
in Elizabeth’s blessed reign. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 223: 


bs uN pha soe eA ee 


WITH ANOTHER, NOR IS ANY ONE CO-CALLED Gop, AS ONE WITH 
ANOTHER; but Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole- Born,ts understood to be [only | 
one, and is honored with [but] ONE Bow (582), within his own flesh 


(583). 


Passages which bear on the topic of Relative Worship in St. Cyril are very 
numerous, for his clear intellect at once saw that that Nestorian makeshift was 
a plain return to the old pagan argument of Relative Worship, and his holy 
soul hated it because he loved God who forbids all creature-worship, whatever 
be the speciousness and craft of tha paganizer’s plea for it, and his conscience 
moved him to do his duty as a Bishop and Watchman against it, and his pity, 
and zeal for the salvation of the deathless souls confided to him by Christ forced 
him to speak and act on all occasions against that Nestorian error. 

I have room here for only a few out of scores of references in his works 
against it. I will refer therefore only to a part of those in one volume, that is 
in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
Nestorius. ‘They are, 


1. Pages 75—81: compare pages 63—75;, and indeed all of the Second 
Book of which those passages form part in Cyril’s Five—Book Contradiction of 
the Blasphemies of Nestorius. ‘The passage on pages 7 5—S81 is in Sections Xi., 
XII., XIII. and XIV. of that book. It is found in P. E. Pusey’s edition of the 
Greek of St. Cyril’s Works, vol. VI, pages 127—133- On page 129, id., St. 
Cyril speaks of Nestorius’ error of the Relative Worship of Christ’s humanity, as 
resulting in Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρείας.) 

2. On Nestorius’ error of Relative-Worship see in that Oxford translation 
of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, in the Index 
of Greek Words under σχέσει and σχετικήν, not however in that bungling trans- 
lation of them but in the original Greek of places there referred to. 

I have a Dissertation on the whole theme of the Nestorian Relative Wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity, which, if God will, I hope to publish. In it I try 
to give a goodly number of patristic and also heretical passages on that theme. 


In the Three Synodical Epistles of Cyril, including the two approved by the 
Third Council, and in the Definition of the Fifth and in its Ninth Anathema we 
have utterances of the whole Church against the Nestorians’ Relative-Worship 
of Christ’s separate humanity. The Long Epistle of Cyril above even quotes 
the words of the heresiarch and condemns them. So does this very Third Synod 
farther on in this its Act I. These are Ecumenical and therefore not disputable 
Decisions forever. I here go somewhat into detail as to the character of such 
of Nestorius’ heretical utterances on the theme of the Relative-Worship of 
Christ’s humanity as are quoted to prove that he held that error and are con- 
demned in said Act and made the basis of his deposition. First, and what is of 
vast importance, the words of Nestorius above, “ I worship him who ts worn”? 
[the mere Man] “707 the sake of Him” [God the Word] ‘who wears him. I bow to 
him who is seen’’ [that is the mere Man], ‘on account of Him” [God the Word ] 
‘Who is unseen,” are found in the Eighth of those Twenty Passages which were 
culled from his writings as proofs and specimens of his heresies and read further 


224 Act I. of Ephesus. 


‘‘And we confess that the Son Himself, and God Sole-Born, born 
out of God the Father, although in His own [Divine] Nature He is 
not liable to suffering, [nevertheless] suffered in flesh for us, accord- 


on in this Act I. On the basis of those Passages he was condemned and deposed 
as a Man-Serving heretic (ἀνθροπολάτρης). It is noteworthy that in the said 
Eighth Passage of Nestorius the above words are followed by a further profes- 
sion of his J/an-Worship, as follows: ‘‘God ts unseparated from him”? [the 
mere Man] ‘‘ who appears. For that reason Ido not separate the honor of the 
unseparated One. I separate the Natures-but I UNITE THE BOWING.”’ 


The above words, taken in connection with other utterances of Nestorius, 
mean that he believed in a mere moral inseparability of God the Word and the 
Man born of Mary whom, according to him, God the Word indwelt not by his 
Eternal Substance as the Orthodox believe, but by his Spirit only as He indwelt 
the Apostles and Prophets as the Nestorians believe. So he bowed to the two 
Natures contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema VIII. which was ap- 
proved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and contrary also to Anathema IX. 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 


So in the Tenth Passage quoted from Nestorius among the Twenty afore- 
said, he again professes to worship Christ’s humanity; for he writes: 


‘ Let us worship the Man co-bowed to with the Almighty God in the divine 
conjunction.”’ 

So in the Fourteenth of the Twenty Passages of Nestorius aforesaid, he 
shows again that he worships Christ’s humanity wth reference, that is Rela- 
tively to God the Word: I quote, 


“7 co-bow to him’’ [the mere Man] ‘‘w7th the Divinity” [ofthe Word], ‘‘zzas- 
much as he 1s a co-worker with the divine authority * * * that which was 
formed from a womb is not God by itself; that which was created by the Spirit 
is not God by itself: that which was buried in the tomb was not God by itself: 
for’’ [ifwe had] ‘‘so’’ [said and worshipped that Man as being himself God, ] ‘‘we 
should have been plainly worshippers of a Man, and worshippers of a corpse. 
But precisely because God 1s in the Man taken,”’ [Nestorius means by His Spirit 
only, not by His Substance] ‘‘¢the Man taken 1s co-called God’ [with God the 
Word] ‘‘from Him’ [the Word] ‘‘ Who has taken him, inasmuch as that Man ts 
co-joined to God the Word Who has taken him.”’ 


Forasmuch as giving the name God to a creature is giving what is preroga- 
tive to God to a creature, and is an act of religious worship, therefore St. Cyril 
anathematizes it in his Anathema VIII. See it in the Letter above towards 
the end. 

Such worship of created things or created persons velatively to God the 
Word is a return to the pagan principle of velative-worship, and therefore 
Cauon I. of the Third Synod calls John of Antioch’s Nestorian Conventicle at 
Ephesus ‘‘ the Sanhedrim [or ‘‘ the Council’) of the APOSTASY (τῷ τῆς ᾿Αποστασίας 
Yuvedpiw); and in its Canon II. it repeats the same appellation of it, and speaks of 
Nestorianism as the Apostasy (τῇ ‘Arooracig); and in its Canons III. and IV. it 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 225 


ing to the Scriptures (584), and He, though He did not suffer, [ never- 
theless] was in the crucified body, appropriating to Himself the suffer- 
ings of His own flesh (585), and dy the grace (586) of God, He tasted 


speaks of those who leave the Church for Nestorianism as Afostates (Canon 
III. has ἀποστατήσασιν, and Canon IV. has ἀποστατήσαιεν). 


(581). Greek, συμπροσκυνεῖται. 


(582). That is no bow is to be given separately to Christ’s humanity. 
Andrew, of Samosata, the Nestorian, in commenting adversely on St. Cyril of 
Alexandria’s Anathema VIII, as we see by his language in note 183, page 97 
above, states that Cyril ‘“‘sazd that the Son [that is, the Logos evidently, 
CHRYSTAL], must be bowed to with flesh, but forbids the flesh to be co-bowed to 
with His Divinity; asthe Greek has it, λέγων αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρκὸς δεῖν προσκυνεῖσθαι, 
ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι τῇ Θεότητι τὴν σάρκα. Andrew evidently, according 
to that translation, understood St. Cyril to deny any worship to Christ’s hu- 
manity at all; that is, he seems to have understood him so to worship the Word 
with Fis flesh (μετὰ σαρκός) as not to worship the flesh at all. See the place in 
Cyril of Alexandria’s Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Bishops of the 
Last, that is, of the Patriarchate of Antioch, of which John of that see, Nesto- 
rius’ supporter, was head. I have quoted it as I find it in P. EK. Pusey’s edition 
of Cyril of Alexandria’s Works, Vol. V1., page 316. See on that particular 
point pages 102-128 of note 183 above. On μετά and σύν above see page 97, 
note. To that I would add another passage which I have since found: it is in 
Cyril of Alexandria’s Address on the Right Faith to Arcadia and Marina, 
where he is arguing against the Nestorian assertion that Christ is a mere Man, 
and contending that He is God, because religious bowing is given to Him, 
which, being prerogative to Divinity alone, and being given to the Son in the 
New Testament proves that He must be God. I quote the passage as I find it 
on page 193 of Part I., Vol. VII. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of Cyril of Alexan- 
dria’s Works: 

‘“< From the Epistle to the Hebrews: 


‘““And when He bringeth in the First Brought Forth into the inhabited 
world, He saith, And let all God’s angels bow to Him. 


‘‘The Word who has come out of God the Father has been named Sole Born 
with reference to His [Divine] Nature, because He alone has been born out of 
the Father alone. And He was called First Brought Forth also when having 
been made Man He came into the inhabited world and [became] a part of it. 
And besides He is so bowed to by the holy angels, and that too when THE RIGHT 
TO BE BOWED TO BELONGS TO AND BEFITS GoD ALONE. How then is Christ not 
God, seeing that He is bowed to even in heaven ?”’ 

“Ὅταν δὲ εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν Προτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει, Kai προσκυνησάτωσαν 
αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελλοι Θεοῦ." 

Μονογενὴς κατὰ φύσιν ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ὠνόμασται Λόγος, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου γεγέννηται 
τοῦ Πατρός" εἴρηται δὲ καὶ Πρωτότοκος͵ ὅτε καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην ἄνθρωπος γεγονὼς 
καὶ μέρος αὐτῆς. ΤΙλὴν καὶ οὕτω προσκυνεῖται παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλλων, ἀνακειμένου τε καὶ 


226 Act I. of Ephesus. 


death for every man (587) [by] giving for him His own body, although 
in His [Divine] Nature He Himself is Life, and the Resurrection 
(588), For in order that, by His unspeakable power, He might tread 
death under foot, and so, in His own flesh first, might become [the] 


πρέποντος μόνῳ θεῷ τοῦ καὶ προσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν. Πῶς οὗν οὗ Θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ καὶ ἐν οὐρανῳ: 
προσκυνούμενος."»" 

In making all worship by owing, the most common of the acts of religious 
service and standing for them all, prerogative to Almighty God, Cyril follows 
the teaching of his instructor and predecessor the great Athanasius, and others. 
See in this set, Vol. I. of Nicaea, A. D. 325, pages 217-255, and under Athanasius 
and Bowing in its Index. 


Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, the Nestorian, seems to have held that St. 
Cyril denied all worship to Christ’s humanity; see note 183 above, pages 98, 
121, 125 and 126. 


(583). Greek, ἀλλ᾽ εἷς νοεῖται Χριστὸς ᾿Ἰησοῦς, Υἱὸς Μονογενὴς, μιᾷ προσκυνήσει 
τιμώμενος μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός. The last four Greek words are often used by Cyril 
in connection with the topic of worship to the Word. They may mean ‘wth 
His own flesh,’’ or ‘‘ within His own flesh.’’ In note 183 I have treated of that 
matter historically only, on pages 102-128. Seethere. I reserve any fuller dis- 
cussion of it until I come to a Dissertation on the subject where I may express 
my own judgment. See the note last above. Those who believe in the worship 
of both Natures of Christ understand the worship of the Word μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας cap- 
κός, to be equivalent to συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι τῇ θεότητι τὴν σάρκα. 


Those who deny any worship to Christ’s Humanity, but confine all worship. 
to Him to His Divinity, claim that the language of Andrew on page 97 above, 
makes against that view, and say in effect about as follows: 


“The words μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός do not imply that the flesh is worshipped, 
but only that we bow to the Word who is always w7z/h His own flesh. The case 
is somewhat similar to my non-religious bowing toa friend. Whenever I see 
him he has clothing on. And I bow to him with that clothing on, but never to 
the clothing. So with my non-religious bowing toa woman. Cyril does not here 
say, ‘Z bow to the flesh w1tu the Word,’ nor does he say, “7 bow to the Word anD 
His flesh,’ nor does he say, “7 bow to the Word, TOGETHER WITH 4715 flesh’ (σὺν tip 
σαρκί). On the contrary, in his books against Nestorius, he, in effect, condemns. 
all such expressions as J/an-Serving, that is creature-serving, and approves the 
credal expression, ‘/ dow TO THE WORD, WITHIN fits fiesh.’? Cyril in his Scholia 
shows that by the expressions ‘‘dnointed,”’ ‘‘Jesus,’’ ‘“Son,” and “‘ Sole-Born,” 
he means the Word alone, who, however, has put on flesh and is in a Man. 
And those who deny worship to Christ’s Humanity adduce against it Anathema 
VIII. of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which was approved by the Third Synod, and 
Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and an expression in the Defi- 
nition of that Holy Synod against “ the crime of Man-Worship.”’ 


I reserve my own judgment till the proper Dissertation appears. It would 
be anticipating to speak now. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 227 


First Brought Forth from among the dead (589),and [the] First Fruits of 
those who slept (590); and in order that He might make for the nature 
of man, a road back to incorruption, He, dy the grace of God, as we 
have just said, ¢asted death for every man (591), and returned to life 


(584). I. Peteriv., 1. See also Paul’s language in Acts xx., 28, where we 
read, ‘‘Feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with Hs own blood,” 
which is a plain New Testament example of the doctrine of Economic Appro- 
priation, for here the bloodshedding of the Humanity is appropriated to God. 
the Word to Whom that humanity belongs. 


It is noteworthy that ‘“‘God ’’ in the above text is the reading of the two 
oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, a fact 
admitted by Tischendorf in his Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octava, 
Critica Major, Lipsiae, 1869-1872; though with the same (shall I say Arian 
or Socinian?) animus, exhibited by him elsewhere, he argues for ‘‘ Lord”” 
instead of ‘‘God’’ there. See onI. Tim. iii., 16,where his arguments for ‘‘ who’” 
instead of ‘‘God’’ do not shake the testimonies of writers of the fourth century 
like Gregory of Nyssa and Didymus of Alexandria, and writers even earlier, 
there adduced. It should be added that even with the lection ‘‘ Lord,’’ (τοῦ 
Κυρίου, in Acts xx., 28, the sense is still the same according to Cyril’s and the 
Third Synod’s understanding of that expression, for they take it to mean God. 
For as we see in Cyril’s three Epistles which were approved in Ecumenical 
Synods and in Cyril’s Scholia he, and those Councils, who followed him as their 
teacher, understood every name of Christ of God the Word. 


There is still another reading of that place, namely ‘‘the Lord and God’’ 
(τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ), which of course also makes the reference to be to God. 

(585). Greek, καὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ σταυρωθέντι σώματι τὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς ἀπαθῶς οἰκειούμε-- 
νος πάθη, that is ‘claiming as His own the sufferings of His own flesh,” on the 
ground that the flesh which suffered was His and not another’s. This is St. 
Cyril’s doctrine of Economic Appropriation. This is not Theopaschitism, for 
Cyril here denies that God the Word suffered, and explains his utterances which 
might, without that explanation, seem to teach it. And, so explained, the 
Universal Church approves those utterances in this Letter. On this Doctrine of 
Economic Appropriation see above, page 74, note 173, and page 79, note 182, and: 
Cyril’s Anathema XII., which, in effect, asserts it and anathematizes those who: 
deny it. 

The Greek at the head of this note, literally translated, is ““ And He was in 
the crucified body unsufferingly Appropriating to Himself the sufferings of His 
own flesh.”’ 

On the doétrine of the Economic Appropriation to Himself by God the 
Word of the sufferings, including even the crucifixion and death, of the 
Man put on by Him, see the pages referred to under οἰκείωσιν and οἰκειώ-- 
σεται in the Zudex of Greek Words in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of 
Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius; St. Cyrils Defence of the 
XUIth of his XII. Chapters Against the Eastern Bishops; his Defence of the 
same Chapter against Theodoret; Chapters VIII. and XXXVII. of his Scho/za. 


228 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


ee ωὦ.ξξεις..  Ξ 


again on the third day, having spoiled Hades (592). So that even 
though it is said that dy a man came the resurrection of the dead (593), 
nevertheless we understand that the Word who came out of God was 
that man (594), and that the power of death has been dissolved by 


SS a ean ene σε  σΕΞΞΕΘΌΨΕΨΕΨΨἝὍΕὌΕεοὁἔουυ 
on the Incarnation; his Dialogue entitled Zhat Christ is One, pages 296-306 in 
the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
Nestorius, his Short Letter to Nestorius, on pages 74-79 above, and the notes 
onthem; and in his Letter to John of Antioch which was approved by the Fourth 
Ecumenical Synod. The last place is on page 74 of P. E. Pusey’s Three Epts- 
tles of S. Cyril. See also in the aforesaid Oxford translation of S. Cyril, pages 
5, 6, 10, 116, 158, 159, 163, 166, 169, 170, 174 and note, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 193 
and note, 225, 226, text and note “‘n,’’ 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 234, 235, 230, 249, 
300, 301, 302, 303, 304 to 308, 312, 313 to 318, 319, 336, and in the /wdex to that 
volume, page 383 under ‘‘ His Passion.” Indeed St. Cyril’s assertions of the 
important doctrine of Economic Appropriation are very numerous, even in that 
one volume. See also all his works passim. See their indexes under proper 
terms. St. Athanasius, St. Cyril’s teacher and his predecessor on the throne of 
Alexandria, taught the same do¢trine of Economic Appropriation. See some 
statements adduced from him on that theme in 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
Incarnation Against Nestorius, page 291, note “τ, Oxford translation. 


And see also especially Anathema XII. at the end of the above Ecumeni- 
cally approved Epistle. It is Cyril’s and the Universal Church’s Economic Ap- 
propriation Anathema, that is their Anathema on all heretics who deny that 
necessary do¢trine. See also page 130, Vol. I. of icaea in this Set. 


(586). That is, ‘‘favor.’’ 

(587). Heb. ii., 9. 

(588). John xi., 25. Compare John v., 26, and John vi., 35-41. 

(589). Col. i., 18. Greek, Πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. Seeon page 225 above, 


note 582, where St. Cyril well explains the difference between Sole-Born (Movo- 
yevnc) and First δ rought Forth (Πρωτότοκος). 


(590). I. Cor. xv., 20; see page 126 above, noted. 
(591). Heb. i1., 9. 

(592). Col. ii., 15; I. Cor. xv., 54-58, and Eph. iv., 8. 
(593). I. Cor. xv., 21. 


(594). It is plain that no mere creature, not even the highest of all mere 
creatures, the spotless and perfect Man put on by God the Word in Mary’s 
womb, could effect the resurrection of the dead. That is the work of the Logos 
alone. He isthe Agent of the Father in that prerogatively divine operation, 
(John v., 19-31), St. Paul therefore in the expression above (I, Cor. xv., 21) 
uses the term Jam as referring to God the Word. This accords with the funda- 
mental do@trine of Orthodoxy by which all the names and sufferings of the 
Man put on are ascribed to God the Word who put him on. For God the Word 
is the infinitely superior Nature of the Two, and unless we bear this in mind 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 229 


Him (595). And in due season, He will come as one Son and Lord 


there is great danger that we run into the fundamental heresy of Man-Worship 
as St. Athanasius and St. Cyril show; see above, page 74, note 173; page 79, 
note 182; and page 75, note. 


(595). Joun1., 14; Il. Tim. i,, 10; I. Cor. xvi,§4, 55; and Heb: Π' τῇ The 
context in Chapter I. of Hebrews shows that it was God the Word who destroyed 
death. 


(596). Matt. xvi., 27; Mark viii., 38; John v., 19-31; and Acts xvii., 31. 


(597). That is 72 the Congregations.’’ Greek, τὴν ἀναίμακτον ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις 
τελοῦμεν λατρείαν. 


(598). The Greek expression καταγγέλλοντες (see I. Cor. xi., 26), should be 
rendered Zelling on, that is by those symbols of bread and wine. For “Zell on” 
is the literal meaning of that verb. And in I. Cor. xi., 26, it should be trans- 
lated ‘‘ ye do tell on.’? Compare the texts under καταγγέλλω in the Englishman’s 
Greek Concordance of the New Testament, where out of seventeen instances of 
it, it is ten times rendered by ‘‘preach,’’ thrice by ‘‘shew,’? once by ‘‘ teach,” 
twice by ‘‘declare,’”’ and once by ‘‘ spoken of.’’ All those renderings coincide 
with the literal sense, ‘‘ fe/Z on.’? 


(599). Greek, τὴν ἀναίμακτον * * * λατρείαν, that is ‘‘service without blood,” an 
expression which makes for the Symbolic view of the Eucharist against both Con- 
substantiation and Transubstantiation. For, of course if there is actual blood 
there, as the Consubstantiationist and the Transubstantiationist both hold, the sac- 
rifice is bloody; not unbloody. This expression Unbloody Sacrifice, has been used 
from primitive times to mark a principal point of difference between the sacri- 
ficial service of Christianity and that of Judaism, that is to contrast the unbloody 
aftertypes of the leavened bread and wine of the great sacrifice of Calvary, with 
its bloody foretype in the Passover Lamb under the Mosaic Dispensation. The 
Roman and Creature-serving interpretation here is that when the writers of the 
primitive Church used the expression ‘‘wnbloody service,’? and unbloody sacri- 
Jjice,’’ and when the Universal Church approved, in its Third Synod, the former 
expression in this Letter of Cyril, they all meant the exact opposite to what 
they said! that is, that they meant bloody sacrifice! This after all their twistings 
and dodgings is what the Consubstantiationists and the Transubstantiationists 
mean. And so they, in effect, reject this part of the Decisions of the Universal 
Church, and are heretics, in order to maintain their own bloody sacrifice and 
idolatrous and creature-serving errors of Consubstantiation and Transubstantia- 
tion, and their logical consequence, the worshipping of Christ’s Divine Substance 
as there present ; whereas Cyril. as we shall show elsewhere, confesses that the 
Substance of the Word is not there, and both he and the Universal Church 
following him have defined and taught that Christ’s separate humanity is not to 
be served, because it is a creature, and that in the Eucharist there is no real 
flesh and blood of a man like us at all, and that neither is eaten or drunk there. 
And, in passing, I would say that there are some men so thickheaded and 
unspiritual as to suppose that unless they make the Christian Sacrifice in the 


230 Act I. of Ephesus. 

ἀπ Mies Poy i te cl ole ee 
in the glory of the Father, to judge, as it is written, che world in 
righteousness (596). 


Eucharist one of actual blood it is not so lofty a one as the dloody offerings of 
the Mosaic Law, whereas it is superior to them precisely because it isa spzritua] 
offering, inasmuch as the spiritual, as all wise men admit, is in its very nature 
higher than the merely carnal, thatis, as carnal means, fleshly. Hence the Holy 
Ghost, by the Apostle Peter (I. Peter ii., 5, 9), speaks of the priesthood of 
Christian clergy and people as being a spiritual one and their sacrifices sptrit- 
wal, and so more noble than the carnal, that is fleshly sacrifices of the Jews, 
sucn as the offering of lambs, bullocks and goats. For, addressing his Christian 
brethren; Peter writes (I. Peter id Sus 
“YVealso as living stones, ave built up a SPIRITUAL house, A HOLY PRIEST- 
HOOD, fo offer up SPIRITUAL, SACRIFICES well pleasing to God through Jesus 
Anointed. * * * But ye are a chosen race, A ROYAL, PRIESTHOOD.”’ And 
well therefore does John the Apostle glorify Christ that ‘‘ He hath made us 
ΧΙ * * prptEsts Zo his God and Father”’ (Rev. i., 6), a glory of which an early 
writer, Tertullian, reminds his brethren, in his work On the Soldier’s Crown, 
Section 15, and in that Ou Monogamy, Section 7, in both which places he quotes 
the last named text. And because the Christian clerics who lead in the offering © 
(for all Christian laics offer with them, as the language of the Anglican Liturgy 
and other Liturgies shows), offer spiritual sacrifices such as the Bloodless Sacrifice 
(ἀναίμακτος θυσία) and prayer and praise, and alms, therefore are they priests in a 
higher sense than the sons of Aaron ever were. For the Holy Ghost by Paul 
teaches us that ¢he gifts and sacrifices of the Mosaic Law could not make him 
that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in 
articles of food and drink, ond divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed 
on them until the time of Reformation (Heb. ix., 9, 10), that is ordinances of 
flesh, that is commands in the Mosaic Law to offer the flesh of lambs, bullocks, 
goats, etc., in sacrifice, until the Christian Dispensation, the Mintstration of the 
Spirit, should take the place of the Mosaic Dispensation, the Ministration of 
the letter and of death (II. Cor. iii., 6-12), that is when the Spzrzzua/, and because 
Spiritual therefore higher Dispensation of Christ, should take the place of the 
Mosaic Dispensation of fleshly ordinances, and because /leshly therefore inferior. 
For since Christ ‘‘offered one sacrifice for sins forever’’ (Heb. x., 12), there 
remain no more bloody sacrifices, which were merely foretypes of His one all 
sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world on Calvary (Rom. vi., Io, 
“ For in that He died He died for sin once for all,’ as the Greek there is; see 
also Heb. vii., 27; Heb. ix., 12, 28; Heb. x., 1-19; I. Peter iii., 18, etc.), and they 
derived their whole efficacy to pardon from it as foretypes of it, not from any 
virtue in themselves; and now remain the nobler a/tertypes of that great sacri- 
fice of Calvary, the bread and wine of the Thanksgiving (Evyxapioria), so-called 
from the giving of thanks by Christ at the Lord’s Supper (εὐχαριστήσας in Matt. 
xxvi., 27; Mark xiv., 23; Luke xxii., 19, and I. Cor. xi., 24; compare Gardner's 
Greek Harmony of the Gospels, Section 134; and Suicer’s Thesaurus under 
“ Ebyapvoria, II.,’? where early writers are quoted to show that Zucharist, that is 
Thanksgiving (Εὐχαριστίαν, is derived from the expression having given thanks: 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 231 


And we will, necessarily, add that thing also. 


(εὐχαριστήσας), in the Gospels); as it is often called the Blessing (Εὐλογία), and 
both elements together ¢he Blessings, as in St. Cyril’s Epistle above (ταις 
μυστικαῖς εὐλογίαις) from the fact that Christ d/essed in the Lord’s Supper in Matt. 
xxvi., 26, and Mark xiv., 22. Wherefore Paul in I. Corinthians x., 16, calls the 
Eucharistic, that is the Thanksgiving cup, ‘‘ the cup of the Blessing (τὸ ποτήριον 
τῆς Εὐλογίας ὃ evaAoyovuer), 

The leavened bread (ἄρτος, not ἄζυμα) and wine of the Eucharist are also 
called the Communion, as in I. Cor. x., 16, ‘‘The cup of the Blessing which we 
bless 1s tt not a Communion of the blood of the Anointed One (οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοὺ 
αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ éotiv)? The leavened bread which we break is it not a Com- 
munition of the body of the Anointed One (τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχί κοινωνία τοῦ 
σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστίν) ? 

Suicer in his 7hesaurus, under the word Εὐλογία, that is Blessing, Seion 
IV., shows from Cyril of Alexandria, and Chrysostom, that the ancient Chris- 
tians used it of the Eucharist, a usage, by the way, which has fallen into too 
much disuse as 7hanksgiving for it also has. 


As we shall see below, one of the Twenty heretical Passages adduced from 
Nestorius’ writings as causes for his condemnation and deposition asserts that 
the real body and blood of Christ’s humanity are in the Eucharist, so that he 
made it in some sense a b/oody sacrifice. See on priesthood and sacrifice there 
and note 95, page 39 above, and id., page 195, note 491. For instances where 
the ancient Christians used ἀναίμακτος θυσία, unbloody sacrifice, of the Eucharist, 
see under ἀναίμακτος and θυσία in Sophocles’ Greek Glossary and also in his Lex- 
icon, as well as Ovoia in Suzcer’s Thesaurus. It would be a sad blunder to forget 
that the bloodless offerings of the New Testament are higher offerings than the 
bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament because they are Spiritual, not carnal, 
that is not of flesh. Many radical so-called Protestants forget this and lay 
themselves open to a crushing reply by any competent scholar. They do not 
help us against Roman idolatry and Roman errors on the Thanksgiving 
(Ev yaproria), 

I here quote a few passages out of many to show how prominent the ancient 
Christians made the New Testament truth that in the Christian Dispensation 
sacrifices are no longer of flesh, and bloody like those of Moses and those of the 
heathen, but spiritual and unbloody. I will refer to others, for the narrow 
limits of a note forbid me to do more. For more on this topic I must refer to 
my Dissertation on the Eucharist, to be published hereafter if God by His 
servants gives me the means. 

I would say that the ancient Christian writers were fond of quoting Malachi 
i., 10, 11, as predictive of the Christian Unbloody Offering of the Thanksgiving 
(Evyapioria) as preferred by God to the bloody offerings of the Jews and as sub- 
stituted for them by Christ in the Gospel. 


Some of these references, for the sake of those readers who do not under- 
stand Greek are given to the pages of Clark’s Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 


232 . Act I. of Ephesus. 


“TG]. For inthe Churches (597), éelling on the death as regards 


published at Edinburgh, Scotland, in 24 volumes. The Greek-reading scholar 
can by them readily find them in the original. 

My limits here will not allow me to refer to many authors outside of the 
Ante-Nicene period. ; 

In a note on the whole of the above Eucharistic passage, I will quote St. 
Cyril’s predecessors in teaching, who belonged to the School of Alexandria, 
whom probably he best knew, and whom he would naturally most incline to 
follow. Indeed, in his pzstle to John of Antioch which was approved by the 
Fourth World-Council, he professes to follow St. Athanasius in all things. 

I will put each of the following references, under the century in which its 
writer flourished. The limits of a note do not permit me to quote them in full: 


Century 7. 


The New Testament utterances on our theme are referred to above in this 
note. 

I do not adduce the alleged Apzstle of Barnabas here, because its authen- 
ticity is now generally denied. On it see the article Barnabas in Hackett’s ἡ 
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible; the article Barnabas, Epistle of, in Smith and 
Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, the author of which (Milligan) has 
(strangely enough) blundered so far as to deny that Barnabas was an apostle, 
contrary to the plain statement in Acts xiv., 14, that he was; and the /utroduc- 
- tory Notice to it on pages 99 and Iooin Volume I. of the Ante-Nicene Chris- 
tian Library. 

In Chapter 2 of that Epistle its writer, whoever he was, speaks of the 
Jewish sacrifices of flesh, incense, etc., as abolished, and the Christian sacrifices 
of a broken spirit, and a heart that glorifies God as acceptable to Him. The 
passage is on pages 102-104 of the Apostolic Fathers, Volume I. of the Ante- 
Nicene Christian Library. 

Century ITI. 


JUSTIN THE MARTYR teaches the priesthood of Christians in his Dialogue 
with Trypho, Section XLI., pages 120 and 121 of the Oxford translation ; and 
Section CXVI., page 214, id., where Christians are called ‘“‘the true high- 
priestly family of God,’ predicted of in Malachi i., 11, and Section CXVIL., 
pages 215 and 216, id. In Sections XLI. and CXVII., he applies Malachi 1., 
Io, II as a prediction of the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices and the substitu- 
tion for them of the Christian—the pure sacrifice of the Eucharist. Compare 
Section XXVIII., page 104, id. See also under ‘‘ Sacrifices’ in the /udex to 
that volume, and ‘‘ Sacrificia’’ in the Judex to tome 6 of Migne’s Fatrologia 
Graeca. 

Still more clear for spiritual sacrifices is Chapter XIII. of his First Apology, 
page 9, id. See also under Lucharist in the /udex to that volume for the 
simple spiritual form of it then. The article /ustinus Martyr in Smith and 
Wace’s Diétionary of Christian Biography, Vol. I., gives as an approximate 
date for the First Apology A. D. 148, and for the Dialogue with Trypho, A. Ὁ. 
142-164; see id., page 563, and 570. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 233 


His flesh (598), of the Sole-Born Son of God, that is of Jesus An- 


Century 71. 


Section XTIT, of the ‘‘ Embassy’? or ‘ Intercession of ATHENAGORAS THE 
ATHENIAN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER 7207 the Christians.’’ It is addressed “20 


the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus.”’ 
Mansel in his article ‘‘ dthenagoras”’ in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of 
Christian Biography, vol. 1., page 205, concludes that the work ‘‘was written 
between the end of A. Ὁ. 176 and that of A. Ὁ. 177.’? That brings its date to 
about 76 or 77 years after the death of the Apostle John, and, so, within a com- 
paratively short distance of the Apostolic age, while the Church was still pure. 
I quote this place: 


‘But since most of those who charge us with atheism, have not even the 
dreamiest knowledge of God and are unlearned and unobservant of the physical, 
and the theological matter [involved], and measure piety by the law of sacri- 
fices, and [therefore] charge us with not acknowledging the same gods as the 
cities do, consider here I pray ye, O Emperors, both those points. And first as 
to our not sacrificing: the Maker and Father of the Universe does not need 
blood, nor the odor of burnt sacrifice, nor the fragrance of flowers and incense, 
forasmuch as He Himself is the perfect Fragrance having no need nor lack; but 
the greatest sacrifice to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted 
the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a centre, who gathered the 
water into seas, and divided the light from the darkness, who adorned the sky 
with stars, and made the earth to bring forth seed of every kind, who made 
animals, and formed man. When, holding God to be the Maker who holds 
them together and superintends them all by that knowledge and skill with 
which He guides all things, we /z/¢ up holy hands [I. Tim. ii., 8] to Him, what 
need has He further of a hecatomb? 

‘«« 4nd men, when any one has transgressed and sinned, intreat the gods by 
sacrifices and gentle prayers, and with a drink-offering and with the odor of 
burnt sacrifice, and turn away their wrath’ [Homer’s J/iad, ix., 499, sq. ]. 


“But what have I to do with whole burnt sacrifices, which God does not need ? 
Although it is necessary to offer AN UNBLOODY SACRIFICE and to bring the 
veasonable service’? [Romans xii., 1]. The Greek of this last part is, Καίτοι 
προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν. The ἀναίμακτον 
θυσίαν, that is the Unbloody Sacrifice is probably the Eucharist, for that is its 
common name among the ancients. And ἀναίμακτος, we must remember, means 
without blood, and the Eucharist, that is the Thanksgiving, is unbloody in that 
sense therefore. 


The expression reasonable service is used by Paul in Romans xii., 1, of pre- 
senting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. 

It should be said that in the New Testament the term sacrifice (θυσία) is used 
not only for Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, but also for different kinds of spir- 
itual sacrifices also; for instance in Philip. 11., 17, of the sacrifice of faith; in 
Philip. iv., 18, ¢he things sent to him by the Philippians to relieve his want; in 


294 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ointed, and confessing His coming to life again from the dead, and 


Hebrews xiii., 15, 16, itis used for ‘‘ the sacrifice of praise to God continually, 
that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name,” and for doing good 
and for communicating of our means to others; and in I. Peter ii., 5, for ‘‘ spz7- 
itual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Anointed,” our Great High 
Priest, who receives them from us and offers them to His Father, and at the 
same time all-prevailingly and all-sufficiently intercedes for us, which interces- 
sion is a part of his prerogatively mediatorial work and office. 


Century 77. 


TERTULLIAN, a presbyter of Carthage, according to Arbp. Benson, on page 
$22, volume iv. of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, wrote 
his work Against the Jews about A.D. 197, 198. Inchapters V. and VI. of it he 
takes Malachii., 10, 11, to be a prediCtion of the substitution of the spiritual 
sacrifices of Christians for the abolished fleshly sacrifices of the Jews; and so in 
his work Ox Prayer, Chapter XXVIII.; both pertinent and excellent passages. 
Compare his work Against Marcion, Book III., Chapter XXII., and id., Book 
IV., Chapter I.; and his work Against Marcion, Book II., Chapters XVIII. 
and XXII. 

ὁ show how thoroughly opposed the primitive Christians were to the idea 
that we eat real human flesh or drink real human blood in the Eucharist, I 
quote here but one passage out of several: that is an utterance of ST. IRENAEUS, 
Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, A. D. 177-202. It is a fragment preserved to us by 
Ecumenius, a Greek Commentator of the tenth century, in his remarks on I. 
Peter iii. He was Bishop of Tricca in Thessaly. I quote it as in column 1236, 
tome VII. of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and follow mainly, though not wholly, 
the English translation of it on pages 164, 165, Part I., of Volume IX., of the 
Ante-Nicene Christian Library. It is as follows: 


Passage I. of RENAEUS: ‘‘For when the Greeks [that is, the pagans] 
having arrested the slaves of Christian Catechumens, then used force against them 
to ascertain some hidden secret forsooth ccncerning the Christians, those slaves 
not having any thing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, 
[and] inasmuch as they had heard from their masters that the godly Communion 
is Christ’s blood and body, they themselves SUPPOSING IT TO BE REALLY BLOOD 
AND FLESH told that to their inquisitors. Then the inquisitors assumed that 
thing to be REALLY done by the Christians in the rite, and, so, exultingly told 
it to the other Greeks, and by tortures sought to compel the martyrs Sandtus 
and Blandina to confess [that the thing was so], to whom Blandina replied very 
admirably and frankly in the following words: How should those persons endure 
such things, who for the sake of ascetic practice did not even give themselves the 
pleasure of partaking of the different sorts of flesh permitted to them.” 

Passage 2 from IRENAEUS . 

This is a fragment found in column 1253 of tome VII. of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca. Itis translated on pages 176, 177, Part I. of Volume IX. of the Ante- 
Nicene Christian Library, and is as follows: 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 235 


His being taken up into the heavens, we perform the Unbloody Ser- 


‘Those who in the second [rites] have followed closely the commands of 
the Apostles know that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the New Covenant, 
in accordance with the following prediction of Malachi the Prophet: For from 
the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name has been 
Llorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense 15 offered to my name 
and a pure offering [Mal. i., 11]; and as John saysin the Revelations, 7he in- 
cense 15 the prayers of the saints [Rev. v., 8]. And Paul exhorts us to present 
our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable 
service [Rom. xii., 1]. And, Let us offer a sacrifice of praise, that ts the frutt 
Of the lips [Heb. xiii., 15]. Now those oblations are not according to the Law 
[of Moses], the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by 
‘cancelling it, but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God in 
Spirit and in truth [John iv., 23]. And therefore THE OBLATION OF THE 
EUCHARIST [that is, the Thanksgiving] Is NOT A FLESHLY ONE, BUT A SPIRITUAL 
ONE AND BY THAT FACT IS PURE. For we make an oblation to God of the 
leavened bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks, because He has 
commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment; and then, 
having finished the oblation, we pray for the Holy Spirit that it may show forth 
this sacrifice [to be], the leavened bread the body of the Christ, and the cup the 
blood of the Christ, in order that the partakers of these ANTITYPES [that is 
“* AFTERTYPES,’’] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those there- 
fore who bring these cfferings 171 remembrance of the Lord [I. Cor. xi., 24] do 
not follow the dogmas of the Jews, but by performing the service spzritually 
they shall be called sons of wisdom.”’ 

Century II. and ITI. See also The Miscellanies of CLEMENT OF 
ALEXANDRIA, Book V., page 299, of the translation in Vol. XII. of the 
Ante-Nicene Christian Library. 

Third Century. See Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, A. Τὴ. 248-258, in his 
Testimonies Against the Jews, Book I., Chapters XVI. and XVII. 

Suicer in his 7esaurus under Θυσία, that is Sacrifice, II., 2, a, tells us that 
that term is used of ‘‘ The Holy Supper of the Lord, which is called a Sacrifice 
even plainly, and that frequently by Chrysostom in his Homtly XVII. on the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. ‘The Sacrifice,’ says he, “ἧς [but] ove. There ts no 
other sacrifice, but we always perform the same one, or rather we perform a 
vemembrance of a sacrifice.’ 

Again he writes, ‘any partake of this sacrifice once only during the whole 
year’ [a fault then come iu which he strongly rebukes, as Bingham shows in his 
Antig., Book XV., Chap. IX., Section 4, and against which Canon IX. of the 
so-called Apostles’ is aimed, and Canon II. of the local Council of Antioch 
which was made of Ecumenical authority by Canon I. of the Fourth Ecumen- 
ical Synod. See how strongly the early Church favored frequent Communion 
in that Chapter IX. of Bingham and in his Book IX., Chapter VIII., Section 5. 

Indeed some Egyptian monks took it every day, often before a meal. For 
Bingham in his Book VII.. Chapter III., Section 17, writes: 


236 Ad I. of kphesus. 


vice (599); and so we go to the secret blessings (600) and 


‘‘And not only on Sundays, but on Saturdays also, it was customary for the 
“Egyptian monks and others of the East to communicate, for the first and last 
days of the week were so appointed by Pachomiius, the father of the Egyptian 
monks, to be Communion days among them, as appears from his Rule in Sozo- 
men [2 εἰ. Hist., Book III., Chap. 14], and Palladius [//7zs¢. Lauszac., cap. 38]; 
and Cassian [Codlat. 18, c. 15], frequently speaks of it as their constant practice. 
Some were more strict, and let no day pass without receiving the Eucharist. 
Palladius [H/is¢z. Lausiac, cap. 3], says the Egyptian monks, under Apollo, 
observed this rule; for Apollo was used to instil this notion into his disciples, 
that a monk, if he had opportunity, ought to communicate every day; and 
accordingly he, with his fraternity, communicated every day at nine, or three 
o’clock in the afternoon, which was the time of their solemn assembly, before 
they went to their ordinary refreshment.”’ 

St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Explanation of his XII. Chapters, under 
Anathema XT., terms the Eucharist ‘‘ the holy and life-producing and unbloody 
sacrifice ; ᾽" see P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of the Works of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, Vol. VI., page 257. I quote and translate: 

“We perform in the Churches the holy and life-giving and unbloody sacri- 
fice, not believing it to be a body of one of those like us and of a common man, 
and so we teach in regard to the precious blood also; but receiving it on the 
contrary [or ‘‘vather’’] as having been made an own body [or “a peculiar 
body?’], and of course an own blood also [or ‘“‘a peculiar blood also”) of the 
Word who giveth life to all things. For common flesh can not make alive, and 
of that the Saviour Himself is Witness, for He says, 7he flesh profiteth nothing, 
it is the Spirit that maketh alive [John vi., 63]. For since it has been made 
for “since it is made’’] an own flesh [or ‘‘a peculiar flesh”’] of the Word, for 
that very reason it is deemed and is life-producing [that is ‘‘and is quickening”’] 
as the Saviour Himself says, As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by 
the Father, [so] also He that eateth Me, even He shall live by Me [John 
Wi 7571: 

‘And since Nestorius, and those who think as he does, unlearnedly do away 
with the force of the mystery, for that very reason and very justly has this 
Anathematism [XI.] been made”’ [against them]. 

So Cyril teaches again in his Defence of his XII. Chapiers Against the 
Orientals, under Chapter XI., and in his Defence of them Against Theodoret, 
under the same Anathema, and in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Book IV. of his Fzve- 
Book Contradittion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 

See also more fully in the Dissertation on the Eucharist in this Set when it 
is published. 

The foregoing quotations aud references (a few only out of the many which 
might be given) amply prove that the Eucharist is not a bloody but an unbloody 
sacrifice, and are against the Nestorian doctrine of the real presence in the 
Eucharist and the actual manducation there of a man’s body like ours, and the 
real presence of human blood like ours there and of our actual drinking it. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 237 


are made holy, becoming partakers of both the holy flesh and 


That would indeed be what St. Cyril in the last reference to him above calls it, 
that is avépwrogayia, that is eating a man, that is cannibalism, and surely that 
would make the Thanksgiving (Hvyapioria) any thing but what St. Cyril calls it 
in the text of the Ecumenically approved Epistle above, that is an ἀναίμακτος 
θυσία, that is an Unbloody Sacrifice. 

It will be noticed by the Orthodox reader that St. Cyril above justly brandsthe 
Nestorian error of ‘‘canntbalism,” (ἀνθρωποφαγία) as he calls it in Section 4 and 5, 
Book IV. ofhis /ive-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, as an 
“‘unlearnedly doing away the force of the mystery.” 

And yet, alas! the creature-worshipping parts of Christendom deem that 
part of Nestorius’ heresy on the Eucharist sound, and so alas! do, in effect, the 
partisans of the heresiarchs Pusey and Keble, who died not only traitors to their 
own formularies, but also to the doctrine of the Universal Church in the Third 
Synod. 

Compare page 50, Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set, and under ‘“‘ Hucharist”’ 
and ‘‘/eeal Presence’’ in Index 1. to that volume. A tendency to what Cyril 
calls Cannzbalism in the Eucharist has generally been associated in the history 
of the Church with a tendency to idolatry and to creature-worship; whereas the 
sound view has generally been held by men who worshipped God alone in 
accordance with Christ’s command in Matt. iv., Io. 

I would add that even the spurious Apostolic Constitutions, which some 
deem an Ante-Nicene Work, agree with the genuine works in teaching the 
doctrine of the Bloodless Sacrifice. For in Book VI., Chapter XXIII., where 
the writer explains ‘ How Christ became a Fulfiller of the Law; and what parts 
of it he caused to cease, or changed, or transferred,’’ he says rightly: 

“* Instead of the sacrifice which was by blood He hath appointed the reason- 
able and unbloody and mystic one of fis body and blood which ἐς performed by 
Symbols to represent the death of the Lord.’ 

The Greek is, ’Avrti θυσίας τῆς δι᾿ αἱμάτων, λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον καὶ τὴν μυστικὴν 
ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου συμβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ 
αἵματος. 

On the words ‘‘dy Symbols’’ Cotelier, a Romanist, as quoted in column 
973, tome I., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, writes as follows: 

“‘ By Symbols, because what is Symbolic and sacramental in the Eucharist 
is a sign of the Lord’s death; according to the following passage of St. Chrysos- 
tom on Matt. xxvi., 28; ‘For if Jesus did not die, of whom are the consecrated 
things Symbols ?? (Hi yav μὴ ἀπέθανεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, τίνος σύμβολα τὰ τελούμενα;). And 
Eusebius in his Δ εοἰεδταέεαὶ History, Book X., Chapter III. [mentions, ] 

“ The secret Symbols of the Saviour’s suffering’ (Σωτηρίου πάθους ἀπόῤῥητα 
σύμβωλαλ.᾽» 

So in id., Book II., Chapter XXV., we read as follows: 

“Ye, therefore, at the present day, O Bishops, are to your people Priests and 
Levites, who minister in the holy tabernacle, the holy Universal Church; 


238 Act I. of Ephesus. 


the precious blood of the Anointed Saviour of us all. And wE DO 
NOT RECEIVE IT AS COMMON FLESH. GOD FORBID! NOR, MORE- 
OVER, DO WE RECEIVE IT AS THE FLESH OF A MAN SANCTIFIED AND 


and stand at the altar of the Lord our God, and offer to Him the reasonable 
and unbloody sacrifices through Jesus, the Great High Priest.”” The Greek of 
the last part is as foliows: Kai προσάγοντες αὐτῷ τὰς λογικὰς καὶ ἀναιμάκτους θυσίας διὰ 
Ἰησοῦ, τοὺ μεγάλου Αρχιερέως, Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome I., column 661. 


In the Liturgy of St. Basil, towards the beginning, the Priest, addressing 
‘God, the Father, says: ““OGod * * * turnnotaway from us sinners, who 
undertake [to perform] this fearful and unbloody sacrifice, to Thee”’ (ἐγχειροῦντάς 
σοι τὴν φοβερὰν ταὐτὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν; Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 31, 
col. 1630. 

The English Communion Office, the Scottish, and the American derived 
from them, have several instances of the use of Sacrifice in a Spiritual sense, 
but would be improved by adding wxbloody sacrificeinafit place. I quote some 
clauses in the American Book in the Oblation - 

‘“We earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our 
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. * * * And here we offer and present 
unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, 
and living sacrifice unto thee. * * * And although we are unworthy, 
through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee 
to accept this our bounden duty and service,”’ ete. 

Just before, the Scriptural doctrine of the So/eness of the one bloody offer- 
ering by Christ on the cross is confessed and the Eucharistic Oblation is pro- 
nounced to be a Memorial of it, all of which accords with the do¢trine of the 
Unbloody Sacrifice as set forth by St. Cyril in the above Long Epistle and 
approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. 


The Anglican type of Liturgy is probably the most Scriptural and grandest 
of allin setting forth the Soleness of Christ’s one sacrifice for sins forever. 


I would add that the Greek order of the above is as follows: 

“And we will necessarily add that thing also [or, ‘‘this thing also”’]. For 
telling on the death, as regards His flesh, of the Sole-born Son of God, that is of 
Jesus Anointed, and confessing His coming to life again from the dead, and His 
being taken up into the heavens, we perform [or ‘‘complete’’] in the Churches 
the Unbloody Service.”’ 

The Greek for the first clause of the above is ἀναγκαίως δὲ κἀκεῖνο προσθήσομεν, 
As Liddell and Scott in their Greek Lexicon teach us under ἐκεῖνος, that term 
‘generally refers to what has gone immediately before,” I have therefore so 
translated it above. Yet it may here possibly refer to what follows it on the 
Eucharist, and is so taken in the Latin translation in P. E. Pusey’s Three 
Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. 

(600). ‘That is, tothe Lord’s Supper. As its rites were anciently reserved 
for the baptized alone, and as the Church jealously guarded its mysteries from 
the eyes of the profane, Cyril’s language, asa designation of it, is very appro- 
priate. To this day the Greeks have a memento of the secrecy observed in all 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 239: 


CO-JOINED WITH THE WORD IN A UNITY OF DIGNITY, THAT IS AS 
THE FLESH OF A MAN WHO HAS A [mere] GODLY INDWELLING (601) 
but as being truly life-producing and [as|a peculiar FLESH OF THE 
WorpD HIMSELF (602). For being Life by Nature inasmuch as He 
is God, stnce he has became one with His own flesh, He has appointed 
(603) 22 to be life-producing. So that even though He says to us, 


the ancient rites of Christianity in the term applied to them, which is JZ/ystery, 
and not Sacrament, that is Sacred Rite,which we use in the West. For proofs of 
the reserve and secrecy observed by the Universal Church in its rites see in 
Bingham’s Antigutties of the Christian Church, Book I., Chapter IV., Section 
8; and id., Book X., Chapter II., Section 10; and especially id., Book X., Chap- 
ter V., all of it; see also id., Book XIV., all of Chapter V., and Book XV., 
Chapter I., Section I. On Romish misstatements as to the Secret Discipline 
(Disciplina Arcant) of the ancient Church see id., Book VIII., Chapter VIIL., 
Section 6. See alsoon this last topic Haddan’s article Disciplina Arcani in 
Smith and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Christian Antiquities, and Plumptre’s. 
article Catechumens in the same work. 

I would add that I was once present at a baptism of an adult in Greece 
where the confession of faith was made in the Church before a large congrega- 
tion, and that then the candidate, a man, retired with the Archbishop officiating 
and a few Clergy, (Presbyters and Deacons), and perhaps a dozen other men,to the 
Baptistery on the Church grounds where the candidate disrobed behind a sereen 
separate from the rest, and that then he came out, a sheet first being thrown 
around him by the Clergy or assistants, was led to the Bishop, received the ante- 
baptismal anointing and all the other rites which immediately precede Baptism, 
and was then thrice totally immersed, the sheet being all this time held around 
him till he had descended into the font, when most of his body was under the 
water, when it was removed, and the Archbishopthen came to the side of the 
font and with his hand on the candidate’s head thrice plunged him totally 
under the water. That he could easily do for the font was high. After that the 
sheet was thrown around him again, and then he came up out of the font, 
received the rites usual after baptism, robed again, returned into the Church, 
where the Congregation had waited during the whole time of the baptism, and 
there the service was finished. So the ancient secret discipline was observed, 
and all things were done, modestly, decently, and in order. 

(601), This is aimed at the Nestorian tenet that the Word did not in As 
own Divine Substance,dwell in the Man conjoined to Him (to use their favorite 
expression), but that He wasin that Man relatively only as he was in the proph- 
ets, and as He is in other holy men, that is by His Holy Spirit alone, which 
is related to Him as being His Spirit, and in that sense the Nestorians held the 
indwelling to be relative only. 

(602). Or, ‘‘an own flesh of the Word Himself :’’ Greek, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ζωοποιὸν 
ἀληθῶς καὶ ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου. 

(603). Or “λας declared,” or has δα ῤί[αϊ»εδα,)" or ‘‘has made,’’ Greek, Ζωὴ 
yap Ov κατὰ φύσιν ὡς Θεὸς, ἐπειδὴ γέγονεν Ev πρὸς τὴν Βαυτοῦ σάρκα, ζωοποιὸν ἀπέφηνεν. 


αὐτήν. 


240 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Verily, Verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man and drink His blood (604) WE DO NOT RECKON IT TO BE THE 
FLESH OF A MAN, LIKE ONE OF US, FOR HOW WILL THE 
FLESH OF A MAN BE LIFE-PRODUCING BY ITS OWN NATURE? 
But we consider it as having become truly a peculiar flesh (605) of 
Him who for us has both become and is called the Son of Man (606). 


(604). John vi.; 53. 

(605). Or ‘‘as having really become an own flesh.’ Greek, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἰδίαν 
ἀληθῶς γενομένην του δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ ᾿Ανθρώπου γεγονότος τε καὶ χρηματίσαντος. 

(606). Cyril teaches here again that we must not understand God the Son’s 
words in John vi.; 53, as meaning that we must eat the flesh and drink the 
blood of a human being such as we are, and such as the Man He put on was, 
but the flesh and blood of the Word, that is the bread and wine of the Eucharist, 
the typical body and blood, by which he communicates the grace of eternal 
life to us, according to His own teaching in John vi.; 47 to 69 inclusive. The 
ancients like Cyprian, Pope Innocent I., and Augustine of Hippo, seem to have 
held that no infant even can be saved unless he partakes of the bread and wine 
of the Eucharist. See the Oxford translation of .Cyprian’s 7veatises, pages 36, 
go, and 187, and 168 to 170. See also Bingham’s Antiquities, Book XIL., 
Chapter I., Section 3, and Book XV., Chapter IV., Section 7, and Scuda- 
more’s article Jnufant Communion in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Chris- 
tian Biography. In what sense we receive the body and blood of the Word 
I will inquire in the Dissertation on the Eucharist. Neither Bingham nor 
Scudamore have pleaded so strongly for the restoration of Infant Communion 
as they might, though they show its’ great antiquity and primitiveness. It 
should be restored wherever it has fallen into disuse. See also on that theme 
Zorn’s Historia Eucharistiae Infantium. 


By the Twelfth Chapter of Exodus the whole of a Hebrew family, including 
every circumcised male, partook of the foretype of Calvary, the Passover Lamb 
(Exodus xii.; 3-5 and 47, 48); and why should not every baptized Christian child 
partake of its aftertypes, the leavened bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper? 
No good reason can be given against hisso doing. The early Christians under- 
stood Christ’s words in John vi.; 53, ‘““Aacept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, 
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,’ to mean that no one, infant or 
adult, can be saved without it. 

The whole Church, East and West, practiced Infant Communion for at least 
800 years after Christ, indeed more or less till the 12th century or even later, 
and the Eastern part practices it, though corrupt in some other things, till this 
very hour. 

Later Scholars like ‘‘ Bishop Bedel and some others have declared entirely 
for it,’’? as Bingham shows in his Antigutties, Book XV., Chapter IV., Section 7. 


And we must remember that every unbaptized infant who is deprived of it, 
and dies without it, by that very fact dies out of the Communion of the Church, 
that is he dies in fact excommunicate. And why should we excommunicate 
any innocent infant, who in his very guilelessness presents not the slightest 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 241 


[H]. But we do not distribute the expressions used of our 
Saviour in the Gospels either among two Subsistences (607), or, 


barrier to its reception, which can not be said of some gray haired sceptics and 
some immoral persons who take it regularly? I. Corinthians xi., 28, sometimes 
adduced against it, is not at all opposed to it, for the apostle is not there blaming 
infants who partook of it, but grown persons who got drunk at it. And, on the 
principle that we must not interpret Holy Writ in such wise as to make it con- 
tradict the belief and practice of the whole Church from the beginning, that 
objection must be at once rejected as a perversion of Scripture. 


Besides no infant is in the Communion of the Church of Christ, the fold of 
the saved, until he has been confirmed and then communed in both kinds, the 
leavened bread and wine. 


And, as the heretics who oppose the baptism of infants allege, the argu- 
ments which would sweep away the Scriptural and Universal Tradition Supports 
for Infant Communion would also sweep away those from the same sources for 
Infant Baptism also. So that it is favoring that soul-ruining heresy to oppose 
the necessity of communing infants as well as adults. 


As this is a very important passage, as being an Ecumenically ap- 
proved utterance on the Eucharist, and as Scholars may desire to see the 
original Greek, I here append it as on page 26 of P. E. Pusey’s “Three Epistles 
of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria,’’ Oxford, 1872, Parker: ’Avaykaiwe δὲ 
κἀκεῖνο προσθήσομεν καταγγέλοντες yap τὸν κατὰ σάρκα θάνατον τοῦ Μονογενοῦς Ὑἱοῦ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, τουτέστιν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τήν τε ἐκ νεκρῶν ’᾿αναβίωσιν, καὶ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν 
ὁμολογοῦντες, τὴν ἀναίμακτον ἕν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τελοῦμεν λατρείαν: πρόσιμέν τε οὕτω ταῖς 
μυστικαῖς εὐλογίαις καὶ ἁγιαζόμεθα, μέτοχοι γινόμενοι τῆς τε ἁγίας σαρκὸς καὶ τοῦ τιμίου 
αἵματος τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ. Καὶ οὐχ ὡς σάρκα κοινὴν de χόμενοι, μὴ γένοιτο" 
οὔτε μὴν ὡς ἀνδρὸς ἡγιασμένου καὶ συναφθέντος τῷ Λόγῳ κατὰ τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς ἀξίας, ἤγουν 
ὡς θείαν ἐνοίκησιν ἐσχηκότος" ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ζωοποιὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου: Ζωὴ γὰρ 
ὧν, κατὰ φύσιν ὡς Θεὸς, ἐπειδὴ γέγονεν ἕν πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα, ζωοποιὸν ἀπέφηνεν αὐτήν" 
ὥστε κἂν λέγῃ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ““᾿Αμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ aiua’?’ οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπου τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἑνὸς καὶ αὐτὴν εἶναι 
λογιούμεθα, πῶς γὰρ ἡ ἀνθρώπου σὰρξ ζωοποιὸς ἔσται, κατὰ φύσιν τὴν ἑαυτῆς ; ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἰδίαν 
ἀληθῶς γενομένην τοῦ δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου γεγονότος τε καὶ χρηματίσαντος. 

Τὰς δέ γε ἐν τοῖς ἐυαγγελίοις τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν φωνὰς, οὔτε ὑποστάσεσι δυσὶν οὔτε μὴν 
προσώποις καταμερίζομεν" etc. 

The above passage on the Eucharist, and Anathema XI. below, are the only 
things on that theme in any of St. Cyril’s three Ecumenically approved Epistles. 
But there is a very important passage in Se¢tions 5, 6 and 7 of Book IV. in 
Cyril’s Five Look Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, where Cyril 
refutes Nestorius’ error on the Eucharist. Language. of Nestorius on that subject 
there quoted is quoted again in the Eighteenth of the Twenty Heretical Passages 
of Nestorius which were read further on in Act I. of Ephesus and were made 
the ground of his deposition. Besides St. Cyril in his two Defences and in his 
Explanation of his Eucharistic Anathema, Anathema XI., reverts to this topic 
again and again. See the part of note 599, which is on pages 236 and 237 above. 


242 Act I. of Ephesus. 


furthermore, among re Persons (608); for the one and sole Anointed 
is not a Double, although He is thought of as [composed ] of two differ- 


These are the chief places which bear on the controversy between Cyril and 
Nestorius, on the 7hanksgiving (Evyapiotia). 


For a fuller citation of those documents, so valuable on the much disputed 
questions regarding the Lord’s Supper, and so little known, and so little under- 
stood even by many who have written on the Eucharist, I must refer the learned 
and Orthodox reader to the Dissertation on that Sacred Rite in this Set, which 
is to appear hereafter, if God will. 


For the present I limit myself, as the small Compass of a note compels me, 
to state the chief faétsin the controversy. And these I will put under two heads;, 
that is, I will tell: 


1. How far Cyril and Nestorius agreed on the Holy Supper, and 
2. How fur they disagreed on it. 


And, 1. As to how far they agreed. 


Both were Bishops in the Eastern part of the Universal Church; and, it may 
be safely assumed, did not differ in the Externa/s of the Rite from what had up: 
to their time been the common customs of Oriental Christendom, as Bingham 
and others have shown them to have been; that is, 


(A). They used the leavened bread, and the mingled cup, that is the wine 
mixed with water. See Bingham’s Antiquities, Book XV., Chapter II., Sec- 
tions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; compare Book XV., Chapter III., Section 35. Even the 
Romanizer J. M. Neale admitted that the Greeks ‘‘always used leavened bread, 
and leavened bread only,’ see Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, pages 124 and 125, 


(B.) They gave both kinds to the people as well as to the clergy, that is they 
gave to every one first the bread separately, and then the cup separately ;”’ see 
Bingham’s Antiquities, Book XV., Chapter V., Sections I and 2; and Book 
XVI., Chapter VI., Section 27. 


I here specify a few facts as to the custom of Nestorius’ Church, Constanti- 
nople; and Cyril’s, Alexandria. 

In the episcopate of John Chrysostom at Constantinople A. D. 398-407, the 
laic still received the bread in his hand and put it to his own mouth, as appears. 
from Chapter V., Book VIII., of Sozomen’s £cclesiastical History. 


By the Alexandrian Liturgy, called St. Mark’s, the communicant took first 
the bread and after that the cup. See J. M. Neale’s H7story of the Holy Eastern 
Church, General Introduction, page 680. And Eusebius in his £cclestastical 
ffistory, Book VII., Chapter [X., has preserved to us a letter of Dionysius, Bishop 
of Alexandria, to Xystus, Bishop of Rome, which was written about A. D. 257 
or 258. Init Dionysius describes a communicant of the Church of Alexandria, 
as ‘‘ listening to the Thanksgiving, and uttering with the rest the Amen [to it], 
and standing near the Table and stretching out his hands to receive the holy food,, 
and receiving it, and partaking of the body and the blood of our Lord.” 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 243 


eee 


ent things which have met in the Inseparable Unity; as man also, for 
instance, is thought of as [composed] of a soul and a body, and yet he 


(C). Zhe people received both kinds standing as they had from the begin 
ning; see Bingham, id., Book XV., Chapter V., Sections 3 and 6. That was 
probably the custom of the whole Church, East and West, at first. It was cer- 
tainly the ancient as it is the present custom of the Greeks. Aye, I have read 
in some work of John Mason Neale that in some old (mediaeval, I think) pic- 
torial representations of the Eucharist in a Western Church or Churches the 
communicants are portrayed as standing. Though Bingham in the above 
place gives it as his opinion that kneeling was sometimes used-he gives no clear 
testimony of any ancient writer to that effect. 

Of those whom he quotes, Easterns and Westerns, not one is clear for any 
other posture than standing. That was probably the posture of the Apostles 
when Christ gave thanks and blessed at the original institution of the Lord’s 
Supper. It is still the posture at the blessing at the beginning of the memorial 
of the Passover which the modern Jews celebrate. I quote an account of it in 
the article Passover, Vol. VII., page 742, outer column, in McClintock and 
Strong’s Cyclopaedia. 

‘“Rach one has a cup of wine. over which they, a// starding up, and holding 
their respective cups in their hand, pronounce the blessing for the juice of the 
grape, welcome the festival, and drink the first cup leaning on the left side.” 
So probably the Apostles stood at Christ’s Eucharistic blessing, for that was and 
is the ordinary posture of the Orientals in addressing God. There is no record 
of their sitting after it. At any rate that is the only posture found in early 
Christian writers in receiving the bread and wine. See Bingham as above and 
Bright as below. The burden of proof rests on him who would bring in any 
other posture at it. And no such proof is possible for there are no facts to base 
iton. Tyrwhitt in his article Hucharist (in Christian Art) in Smith and Cheet- 
ham’s Didtionary of Christian Antiquities, Volume I., page 626, inner column, 
tells us that, 

“ΤῊ the Laurentian MS., A. D. 556, our Lord is represented as administer- 
iig asmall rounded object, evidently bread, to one of eleven standing figures. 
(See woodcut).’? It represents evidently the first administration of the Lord’s 
Supper to His eleven faithful Apostles, and the observable thing is that He and 
they all stand, though, as there is a little space between Christ and the recipient, 
the upper part of both bodies are bent towards each other, but yet both stand. 
As the painters of such scenes were not generally learned in Christian Arch- 
aeology, and generally contented themselves with portraying such rites in the 
way they saw them administered in the Church in their day, we may therefore 
naturally infer that in A. D. 556 the old custom of standing in the delivery and 
in the reception of the Eucharist still remained in the home of this painter. 
The passages quoted in the ten volume edition of Bingham’s Works (Oxford, A. 
D. 1855), show that the clergyman who delivered the bread stood as well as the 
recipients. Bingham in Section 3, Chapter V., Book XV. of his Antiguzties, 
speaking of the testimonies adduced by him on the subject of standing at the 
reception of the Lord’s Supper, writes: 


244 Act 7. of Ephesus. 
is not a double, but one from both. Furthermore, if we think rightly 
we shall see that the human as well as the divine expressions were 


“There is sufficient evidence from the foregoing testimonies, of their stand- 
ing to receive the Eucharist at the Lord’s table. And this is further confirmed 
by a collateral argument, which is, that on the Lord’s Day, and all the days of 
Pentecost, they were obliged to pray standing, and in no other posture, as has 
been shown at large above [Book XIII., Chapter VIII., Section 3], therefore it 
is very reasonable to believe, that at all such times they received the Eucharist 
in the same posture they were obliged to pray in, that is, standing at the altar.”’ 
In reply to this I would say, first, that, as Bingham states, the testimonies, 
adduced by him show that in ancient times Christians received the Eucharist 
standing. But the argument that they received it standing because they prayed 
standing is not pertinent, for the two things, prayer and the reception of the 
Eucharist, are not the same. 

So he is weak and rests upon not a single written testimony but upon mere 
guess and surmise when he adds, in the same place, 

‘‘But then the usual custom was, on all other days, and particularly on the 
Stationary Days’? [Wednesday and Friday] ‘‘for the whole Church to pray 
kneeling, as has likewise been fully evinced before [Ibid. Section 4], and 
therefore it is no less reasonable to believe that they received the Communion 
in the same posture as they prayed, though there are not such positive evidences 
of their practice.”? Then after refuting two alleged proofs for kneeling at the 
Communion, one drawn from a corrupt and false reading of Tertullian in one 
place; and the other from Cyril of Jerusalem which he shows means ““not 
kneeling,’”’ but ‘‘ standing in a bowing posture,’’ he comes to a passage of 
Chrysostom which he thinks ‘“‘seems more nearly to express” kneeliug at the 
reception, which however says not a single word on the topic of posture at the 
reception. Finally, as if aware on sober second thought of its weakness as a 
proof, he reverts to his argument above : 

‘‘But if there were none of these expressions, the very custom of kneeling 
at prayers on these days, is a sufficient indication of the posture in which at 
the same time they received the Communion,”’ that is he infers, illogically 
enough, that because they knelt in prayer on certain week days therefore they 
must have knelt at the reception of the bread and wine of the Eucharist on 
those days: and this supposition he puts forth without a single passage of any 
ancient writer to back it. And indeed the Orientals do not commonly kneel 
but stand generally on all week days, when we Westerns kneel. And this 
seems to have existedalways. Of the three passages adduced by Bingham then, 
one is from a Western, Tertullian, of Latin Africa. It is found in Chapter XIX. of 
his Work ‘‘ Ox Prayer,’’ which was written while he was still Orthodox (Oxford 
translation of Tertullian, page 299, top, preliminary note, and Fuller’s article 
Tertullianus, in Volume IV. of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, page 822, outer column.) Fuller in the last named place ascribes 
it to about A. D. 197-199. It is therefore a description of Orthodox custom in 
the African Church. Let ussee what it says on the theme of posture in the 
reception of the Eucharist. I translate: 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 245 


said by [but] One. For when in language which pertains to God 
(609), He says of Himself, He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father 


Tertullian On Prayer, Chapter XTX; (Col. 1181, Tome 1 of Migne’s 
Patrologia Latina) : ‘‘In like manner also very many think that on the Days 
of Standing Guard we ought not to be present at the prayers of the sacrifices 
because the Guard-Stand is to be ended when the Lord’s body is received. Doth 
then the Eucharist break off a service devoted to God? Doth it not the more 
bind to God? Will not thy Stand-Guard be more solemn if thou stand at the 
altar of God also. When the body ofthe Lord hath been received and reserved, 
both things are observed, both the partaking of the sacrifice, and the fulfilment 
of the service. If the Stand-Guard taketh its name from the example of a 
soldier’s standing guard (for we are even God’s soldiery)’’ [II. Tim., ii, 3, 4: 
I. Tim., i., 18: II. Cor. x., 4: and Eph. vi., 10-18], “‘surely no joy or sorrow 
that cometh upon the camp, cutteth short the guard-stands of the soldiers. For 
joy will the more cheerfully, sorrow the more anxiously, maintain the dis- 
cipline.’’ By ‘‘rveserved’’ here, Tertullian means the custom of the com- 
municant’s keeping the consecrated bread to eat at home after his fast was over 
as is shown in note ‘‘0,’’ page 313 of the Oxford translation here. Compare the 
article Eucharist, Section 5, in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian 
Antiquities. 

Bingham (Antig., Book XV., Chapter V., Section 3,) thinks that to ‘“‘stand 
at the altar of God’’ here does not mean really to stand, which conflicts with the 
assertion of Tertullian. Indeed the only posture here mentioned is standing 
and that at the receiving ‘‘the Body of the Lord.’’ Wis argument for the view 
that Tertullian’s ‘‘staxd at God’s altar’’ means knéel at God’s altar is that 
Tertullian, in that place, is speaking of the Stand-Guard days, Wednesday and 
Friday, and that on those days all Christians mmws¢ have knelt. And in his 
Antiquities, Book XIII., Chapter VIII., Section 4, he shows that kneeling was 
used in both branches of the Church, the West and the East, though some of 
the passages there cited relate to prostration not to mere kneeling. And 
Bingham does not prove there either that all his kneeling passages there refer 
to kneeling on the two Stand-Guard days aforementioned, nor that kneeling 
alone was universal on them, though it was much more common in ancient 
times, as it is now, in the West than in the East. Indeed the Orientals now as 
of yore use kneeling but seldom. They generally pray standing on the Stand- 
Guard days as they do on Lord’s days. And the custom of the African Church 
seems on those days to have been similar, only on those two days kneeling 
and prostration might be used and were used in accordance with Canon 
XX. of Nicaea. See on the posture of standing, of bowing down the head, 
and on that of prostration Bingham, id., Sections 3, 5 and 6. And as in 
the East men sometimes knelt or prostrated themselves on the Stand-Guard 
days, and yet, as we know from ancient writers, stood to receive the Com- 
munion on those days and at all other times as they do still, so in Latin 
Africa they did as Tertullian’s words above show, ‘‘ Will not thy Stand-Guard 
be more solemn if thou s¢amd at the altar of God also?’’ (Nonne solennior 
erit statio tua si et ad aram Dei steteris?). And Bingham himself in Section 


246 Act I. of Ephesus. 


(610); and 7 and the Father are one (611), we recognize His divine and 
ineffable Nature, in which, by identity of Substance, He 15 one with 


12, Chapter VI., Book VIII. of his Antiguities understood this last expression 
as referring to the reception of the Eucharist on the said Stand-Guard days, for 
he explains it as follows, “ Will not your station or fast ὃ * * be more 
solemn, if you stand at the altar of God? that is, receive the Communion on 
a fast day.”’ 

There is therefore not the slightest clear proof that any of the ancients 
knelt in receiving the bread and wine of the Communion. The only posture 
at it distinétly mentioned is standing. 

Bright in his Votes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, page 
75, so understands it, and gives quite a number of passages from early writers 
and Liturgies which show that in both the West and the East, standing was 
the ancient custom in receiving the Eucharist. I quote it: he has been speak- 
ing of Canon XX. of Nicaea which commands standing in prayer during all the 
Lord’s Days in the year and during the whole period from Pask to Pentecost. 
Then he goes on as follows : 


‘‘The Canon does not mention, but goes far toimply, that custom of standing 
at the Holy Communion to receive the Eucharist, which to all appearance was 
taken for granted on all hands. It was indeed usual for the faithful to kneel 
during the first prayer said after the dismissal of the ordinary penitents; see 
Chrysostom (on II. Cor., Hom. xviii., 3), that during this prayer they were pros- 
trate on the pavement: and in the ‘Clementine’ liturgy the deacon proclaims at 
this point of the service, ‘ Let all of us, the faithful, bend the knee.’ But from 
the offertory onwards, all stood: so the ‘Clementine’ represents the deacon as 
saying just before it, ‘Let us stand upright to offer to the Lord.’ Compare the 
similar direction in the Liturgy of St. James, ‘Upright all!’ (Hammond’s 
Liturgies, p. 32): and St. Mark’s (ib. p. 179), and there are, later on, repetitions 
of ‘Let us stand,’ as in St. James’s Greek and Syriac, St. Chrysostom’s, the 
Armenian, the Coptic, etc. The very title of the συνιστάμενοι tells us enough, 
and the Roman canon still describes those who are present at the Mass as 
‘standing around’ (‘Memento * * * omnium circumstantium.’) ‘It was 
thought the proper position for all who offered sacrifice’ (Scudamore, Notit. 
Euchar. p. 183), as the faithful did in their own way, not only by contributing 
the elements, but by sealing the great ‘oblation’ with their Amen. And as 
sacrifice was consummated by participation (see Scudamore, p. 400) they kept 
the same posture at the moment of communion: thus Tertullian speaks of 
‘standing at God’s altar’ and ‘receiving the Lord’s Body’ (de Orat. 19), and 
Dionysius of Alexandria tells a remarkable story about a man who had long 
been accustomed to ‘stand beside the table, and stretch forth his hand to 
receive the holy food’ (Euseb. vii.g; laymen were wont to come up to the 
altar for Communion, compare Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xvii. 12, Chrys. in II. 
Cor., Hom. xx. 3, and Martene, de ant. Eccl. Rit. i. 430). Rather more than 
twenty years after the Council, Cyril of Jerusalem instructed his catechumens, 
when they made their Communion for the first time, to ‘receive the Body of 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 247 


His own Father (612),andis His Likeness, and Character, and the Efful- 
gence of His glory (613). But when, not dishonoring the measure of 


Christ’ in the palm of the right hand, to ‘draw near to the cup, not stretching 
out the hands, but stooping (κύπτων), and saying the Amen in token of worship 
and reverence’ (Catech. xxiii. 21, 22). To this day, communicants in the 
Eastern Church thus stand bending forward (compare an old Ethiopic form, 
‘Ye who stand, bend your heads,’ before the prayer of access ; Hammond, p. 
236). In the Latin Church ‘some traces of the ancient practice remain ’ 
(Scudamore, p. 636), notably in the case of the priest’s own communion at 
Mass, and of the deacon’s at a solemn papal celebration.” 


Bingham, in his Antiguities, Book XV., Chapter V., Section 3, refers to 
two other passages as having been cited to show that sometimes the 
ancient Christians received the Eucharist on their knees. Both are from 
Easterns, that is one from Cyril of Jerusalem, which teaches bowing at 
the reception not kneeling, and all should bow to the Father in heaven 
to whom alone the Unbloody Eucharistic-Memorial of His Son’s Bloody 
Sacrifice on the cross is offered, to Whom an excellent African Canon, 
Canon XXIII, of the Third Council of Carthage, A. D. 397, directs all prayers 
at the altar to be always addressed, for as the original sacrifice of Christ on the 
cross, was offered by the Son not to Himself, nor to the Holy Ghost, but to the 
Father alone, so must we offer its Aftertypes, the leavened bread and wine of 
the Thanksgiving. Wence any address in prose or poetry to the Son or the 
Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic rite is out of place, and at the least shows most 
lamentable ignorance of the fact that it is a sacrifice to the Father. Often in 
later times addresses to the second person of the Blessed and Adorable Trinity 
are meant as addresses to Him as really present by His Eternal Substance on 
the Holy Table, which is manifest idolatry; for as St. Cyril of Alexandria 
teaches in passages quoted from him below, the Substance of Christ’s Divinity 
is not there, nor is It eaten there. Such addresses to the Son at the rite have 
come to be used idolatrously even by some perverted and perverse later Angli- 
cans to testify their beliefin the heresy of the real presence of the Substance of 
His Divinity there, contrary to Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Synod. For 
instance, Bp. King, the unsound Bishop of Lincoln, is reported to have used at 
the rite the expression ‘‘ Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, 
have mercy upon 15. Arbp. Benson in not deposing him for that act, if it was 
done with intent to worship any alleged real presence of the Substance of Christ’s 
Divinity there, has done violence to the Formularies of his own Communion, has 
been false to the faith, has neglected his vowed duty, has aided the spread of 
idolatry where he should have checked it, and so has done what he could to 
damn the souls of thousands of his people to the eternal flame, has proved a wolf 
to destroy where he should have been a shepherd to save, and has proven him- 
self the most infamous occupant of the throne of Canterbury since the days of 
the corrupter Laud who brought God’s curse on Church and State, as Benson is 
doing. Ifthe Church of England is to be saved, he should be at once deposed 
and Bp. King with him. For the action of the Third Council of the whole 


248 Act I. of Ephesus. 
nm τ τ 9595--- 5 
His humanity He says tothe Jews: ‘ Butnow ye seek to kill me,aman 
who hath told you the truth’ (614), we recognize none the less again 
Church against the Nestorian heresy on the Eucharist requires that. So should 
be deposed Arbp. Benson’s co-assessors if they were partners in his sin of toler- 
ating soul-damning error. 

Bingham’s reference to Chrysostom does not prove any kneeling at the 
reception of the Communion. 

Furthermore,no ancient Greek Father mentions kneeling at the Communion. 
But, as Bingham shows, they mention standing at it again and again. And to 
this very hour though the Greeks use different postures in prayer, standing, 
kneeling, and prostration, they use only one at the reception of the Lord’s 
Supper, that is standing as they have done from the beginning. They kneel 
at Pentecost only. At other times they stand, but sometimes prostrate 
themselves, but never on Lord’s Days, nor during the whole period between 
Pask and Pentecost. They often use bowing. 

In the same section, just below, Bingham adds as to posture in receiving 
the Eucharist, 

‘* As to sitting, there is no example of it, nor any intimation leading toward 
it in any ancient writer.’’ 

To conclude, all the testimony which exists in the ancient writers makes 
for the standing posture in delivering and in receiving the bread and wine of 
the Lord’s Supper. To that custom all Westerns will return at last. Indeed 
some of them so receive now, as, for instance, the German Lutherans. 


And all the Easterns should return to primitive practice in other things 
where they are astray. 


(D.) Lnfants as well as all others received the Communion in both kinds: 
see the references to Bingham in this note above. 


(Ε.) Both Cyril and Nestorius consecrated the Thanksgiving (Εὐχαριστία) 
in both kinds on a table after the example of Christ in the Gospels and of the 
Apostles (Luke xxii., 21; John xiii., 28; and I. Cor. x., 21.) For that was the 
custom of the whole Church, West and East, in their day as it had remained 
from the beginning, and as it remained long after, and as it remains in the 
Greek Church till this very day, for every altar in Greece and in Constantinople 
which = examined in A. D. 1869, by raising the cloth which covered its front 
and sides, I always found to be, according to the New Testament example, a 
table. Formerly, as we see by Paul the Silentiary’s account of the Holy Table 
in the Cathedral Church of Holy Wisdom at Constantinople, the Table stood 
on four legs (pages 63, 64, of Vol. I. of Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of 
Christian Antigutties) ; but in every instance that I saw in Greece and Con- 
stantinople it stood on but one placed under the centre of the table like the 
altar on page 63, id., which was found near Auriol in France, which is thought 
as old as the fifth or sixth century ; it left all the under part of the table, open. 
In the top of the leg or under the table must be put relics now by the enactment 
of the idolatrous conventicle held at Nicaea in A. D. 787 under Irene, the 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 249 


Him who is God the Word in the equality and likeness of the Father, 
even though He is in the measures of His humanity. For since it is 


Jezebel of idolatrizing, and Tarasius, of the God-cursed death. So its Canon 
VII. orders. Balsamon and Aristenus, Greek Canonists of the twelfth century 
ridiculously enough make what in Ralle and Potle’s Σύνταγμα 15 Canon LXXXIII. 
of Carthage to favor the same evil practice of placing dead men’s bodies or bones, 
which the Old Testament brands as defilements (a), under Christian Holy 
Tables where the Pure Sacrifice of Malachii., 10, 11, the Unbloody Sacrifice, 
is offered, whereas the aim of that Canon was to stop superstition and idolatry 
and relic-worship so far as perverted and wilful mobs of ignoramuses would 
allow. Before that Canon was made, the Second Canon of the First Council 


(a). Levit. xxi., 11; Numb. xix., 11-22; Numb. v., 1-5; Numb. ix., 6-15; Numb. xxxi., 19; 
Lam. iv., 14,15; Haggai1r,13. God in thus forbidding priests and people to touch a dead 
body or its bones or blood rendered relic worship impossible to the Israelitish people (Deut. 
Xxxiv., 5, 6). He buried Moses away from them for the same reason, for doubtless they 
would have worshipped his body or bones by kissing, incense, etc., as the Greeks, Romanists, 
and pagans do to-day with their relics. Indeed with one thing which some might call a relic, 
the brazen serpent, they committed idolatry by giving it the relative worship of incense; and 
therefore the God-blessed, pious, reforming, and restoring King Hezekiah brake zt in pieces 
and called it Vehushtan, that is ‘‘a piece of brass’’ (II. Kings xviii., 4 and the context). Here 
the relic worshippers might have said, God commanded Moses to make it,and you have no vight 
to break τέ. Others not relic worshippers, but Reformers less zealous than Hezekiah, might 
have said, Remove τέ far from the deluded who incense tt and so ruin t/ emselves, but do not 
destroytt. But that glorious monarch, so loyal and faithful to God, the Jealous One, who will 
not give hts praise to graven images, saw that it might, after his death, be again worshipped, 
and he therefore broke it, and God commends him for it and for his other a¢ts in reforming 
in most commendatory terms (II. Kings Xviii. 1-9). 

So in the Old Testament we read that God’s prophet in foretelling His vengeance agalnst 
the idolatrous altar of Bethel, where Jehovah was relatively worshiped through a calf, declares 
that men’s bones shall be burnt upon it, Compare On that relative worship there of a calf I. 
Kings xii., 28, where the Hebrew should be rendered, ‘‘ Behold thy God,’ [that is, in 
an image], “Ὁ Jsrael, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt,” that is 
Jehovah. Similar language is used in Exodus xxxii., 1, 8; ‘Make us a God.” ‘* This 
zs thy God, O Israel, who hath brought thee up out of the land of Egypt,’ that is 
Jehovah, in an image. That the reference is to Jehovah here and not a false God 
is made clear by the Hebrew of verse 5, ‘‘ Jo-morrow is a feast to Jehovah.’ And let 
us remember that Jehovah is never used for any but the true God. And the idolaters were 
celebrating that feast to Jehovah when the Lord cursed them for it (Exod. xxxii., the whole 
chapter). Sothe noble and blessed reforming King Josiah defiled the places of idolatrous 
worship by filling them ‘‘ w7th the bones of men,”’ etc. (II. Kings xxiii., 13 to 21). Compare II. 
Chron. xxxiv.,5. It is observable that though Cod wrought a miracle by the bones of Elisha 
to attest his mission (II. Kings xiii., 21), it was not when his Law which required their burial 
was violated, but when a dead man was let down into his auti-relic-worshipping prophet's 
sepulchre, and that the Israelites did not therefore take up Elisha’s bomes and scatter them 
hither and yon to work miracles, as Christians who fell into the paganism of relic-worship 
did, nor did they, like those worshippers of the relics of Saints, worship Elisha’s relics. 

I presume it likely that the wretched man who first buried the defilements of dead men’s 
bones in the top of a leg supporting a Communion Table had in mind the fact that under the 
altar in the temple of Heaven are the souls of the martyrs, who cry for vengeance on those 
evil men who dwell on the earth (Rev. vi., 9-12). But surely he should have seen that san¢ti- 
fied and purified and spotless souls are one thing, and dead men’s stinking and unclean 
bones another and widely different thing, and that the souls of the martyrs are in Heaven 
where that altar is and not on earth. 


250 Act ὦ, of Ephesus. 


necessary to believe that He, being God by Nature, has become flesh, 
that is a man animated by a rational soul, what reason have any to 


of Carthage, A. D. 348, had commended the burial of martyrs’ bodies, and 
in effect had condemned their worship. 


But none of the above five points, A, B, C, D, and E., was called into dispute 
in the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius on the Eucharist. Both dispu- 
tants would agree on them. 


But the following points are mentioned,and I dwell on them the more partic- 
ularly, as they bear on, and, taken together, settle forever the question as to the 
worship of the alleged real presence on the Holy Table of the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity and the alleged real presence of the substance of His Humanity 
there; a heresy newly put forth in our time in the Anglican Communion, against 
its own Formularies and against the Decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council, 
by two of its thoroughly traitor presbyters, E. B. Pusey, and John Keble of the 
sad death; on both of whom as convicted antecedently by the Third Synod we 
must pronounce Azathema, or be ourselves traitors to God, and be condemned 
as idolaters if we approve that heresy, or as guilty of such false liberalism, and 
disobedience as cost our first parents temporal death, and King Saul his crown, 
and will lead to our own damnation as failing to do our full duty as watchmen 
upon the walls of Zion. St. Paulin Galatians i., 8, 9, has antecedently anathe- 
matized them and all who teach like them on that theme, and we must do the 
same or be condemned. Christianity is a militant faith, not a mere uncertain 
mistiness fit only for weaklings and dawdlers. I go on. 


[F]. (a). «ἧς to the alleged real presence of the attual Substance of Christ’s 
Divinity on the Holy Table in the Eucharistic rite, St. Cyril plainly denies tt, 
and I think that Nestorius agrees with him. 


(6). Both St. Cyril and Nestorius very plainly deny any eating of the 
Divinity of Christ tn the Eucharist. 


For the full text of all the places of St. Cyril which are most pertinent on 
this matter, see the Dissertation on the Eucharist which I hope soon to pub- 
lish, if the means be sent to me for that purpose. I shall simply quote the most 
definite utterances in Cyril, and the Third Council on this theme. They com- 
prise not only his own words but those of Nestorius also. 


As a necessary preliminary, in order to learn exactly what the Universal 
Church has decided once for ever on the Eucharist, we must first understand 
the questions on it regarding which Nestorius and St. Cyril of Alexandria dif- 
fered. Nestorius supposed Cyril to be an Apollinarian, that is a One-Natureite: 
that is, he thought that Cyril held that Christ’s human nature had been changed 
into His Divinity, and so that he held that we eat Christ’s Divinity only in the 
Lord’s Supper, whereas Nestorius held that we eat and drink Christ’s humanity 
there, and he therefore brings Christ’s assertion in John v1., 56, 57 that we eat 
His flesh and drink Hts blood as a proof that His humanity was not transub- 
stantiated into Divinity but still exists. His argument has no meaning unless 
we understand him (as Cyril did, as we see below;) to take Christ’s words literally, 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 251 


be ashamed of any of His expressions, though they befitted His 
humanity? For if any one rejects those words which befit the Man, 


in which case we must understand him as Cyril and the Third Council did to 
teach cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία), and must condemn him for such errors, as 
they did. Nestorius’ words show that he did not believe that we eat Divinity 
at all in the rite. 


That Nestorius deemed Cyril an Apollinarian is clear from Cyril’s /ive 
Book Contradittion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book II., Chapter Io, 
page 43 of Pusey’s translation, and from the passage below. As yet no party 
held that both Natures of Christ, that is the actual Substance of His Divinity 
and the actual substance of his humanity are on the Holy Table in the rite and 
are taken into the mouth and swallowed. That was to come in with the later 
heresies of Consubstantiation and of Transubstantiation. Yet it could be said 
that the corrupting Antiochian School were gradually veering towards what St. 
‘Cyril calls below the error οἱ Hating a Man (ἀνθρωποφαγία), whereas the Alex- 
andrian School as yet was entirely free from such errors as it had been from 
the beginning. 

To show Nestorius’ own ideas and errors, I here anticipate and quote the 
particular places of his writings which are two in number, and are quoted below 
in this Act I., as heretical, and were made part of the criteria and basis for his 
deposition. 

[ ‘‘ Passage 18,’ of the 20 Heretical Passages quoted in Act I. of Ephesus 
from Nestorius’ Writings, which were made the criteria and causes for his 
deposition in tt, | 

‘‘ Another Passage, likewise from the same [Work of Nestorius]; tetrad iv. 


‘Hear therefore and give heed to the things which I am about to speak. 
He says, He that eateth my flesh (6). Remember that this is said regarding the 
flesh, and that the expression the flesh is not added by me, lest I seem to them to 
misinterpret. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood (c); he did not 
say, He that eateth my Divinity and drinketh It, but He that eateth my flesh 
and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him? (a). 

‘And after some things more [Nestorius adds]: 


‘But with reference to the point before us, He that eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood, abideth in me and 7 1722 him (6); remember that this is said 
REGARDING THE FLESH. As the Living Father hath sent me (77), me [he means], 
who am visible to you(g). But Isometimes misinterpret [thou sayest]. Let us 
hear [then] something from the words which follow: As the Living Father 
hath sent me (1), HE [Cyril ?] SAYS THAT ‘7”é’ HERE MEANS THE DIVINITY; 


(6). John vi., 56. 


(c). Ibid. 
(da). Ibid. 
(4). Ibid. 


{f). John vi., 57. 
(g). That is Christ’s humanity, which is visible; not his Divinity, which is invisible. 
(hk). John vi, 57. 


252 Ac I. of Ephesus. 
ee nnn ne EEE οο΄-------- 
who is it that forced Him to become a man like us? And forasmuch 
as He [the Word] abased Himself to a voluntary making Himself of 
Ee 
BUT I ASSERT THAT IT MEANS THE HUMANITY (ἢ). Let us see who the 
misinterpreter is; Christ says, ds the Living Father hath sent me (7), and the 
heretic [Cyril ?] says that He means the Divinity [by ‘‘me’’] here. For in the 
clause, He hath sent me (k), he says, that ‘‘me’’ means God the Word. In 
that sense he [the heretic] understands the “‘me”’ in the expression, As the 
Living Father hath sent me (2). And according to them the word ‘‘/”’ in the 
clause, And J live (m) means, God the Word ; so that he understands the whole 
passage to mean, And J, God the Word, live by the Father. ‘Then forasmuch as 
after that expression it says, dvd he that eateth me, he also shall live (m) 1 ask 
WHAT DO WE EAT, THE DIVINITY, oR THE HUMANITY? (0).” 


St. Cyril in his Aive-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 
Book IV, Section 3 and after, page 140 and after in the Oxford English transla- 
tion, replies at length to the above quoted passage of Nestorius, denies that we 
eat Divinity in the Eucharist, or that It is on the Holy Table in the rite, and 
accuses Nestorius’ error of eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood 
of a Man as resulting in ‘‘Cannibalism.”’ See the Oxford translation of S. 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, page 142, and the 
context. Even Pusey in his note ‘‘s,’”’ on pages 143, 144, quotes Cyril as deny- 
ing that we eat Christ’s Divinity, in the rite, and as charging Nestorius with 
“Cannibalism,” and in the Index to that volume, under Hucharis/ on page 380. 
he refers to Cyril again as teaching that ‘‘we eat the Son’s flesh, not Godhead.” 
To be more exact he should have said that, in the places there referred to, Cyril 
teaches that we eat not the flesh of a man like one of us, but the flesh of God 
the Word. It is strange how after admitting that Cyril teaches that, and having 
before him Cyril’s teaching in the very places adduced and quoted by him that 
Christ’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the rite, he should have fallen 
into the idolatry of worshipping His humanity there, since all admit that St. 
Cyril’s Anathema VIII., approved by the Third Ecumenical Synod, and Anath- 
ema IX., of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Definition of which it forms 
part forbid any worship of the separate humanity, even were it there as Nesto- 
rius held. Humorously enough the Romanizing E. B. Pusey, who opposed 
essential parts of St. Cyril’s doctrine on the Lord’s Supper and did so much to 
foster that idolatry of worshipping both Christ’s Divinity and humanity as 
substantially present in it, in id., Preface, page CIV., claims Cyril as his “‘ early 
teacher’’ on the Eucharist, whereas St. Cyril shows that Christ’s Divinity is not 
there at all, and that His separate humanity cannot be worshipped. 


(ἢ. On this see below, at the end of this passage of Nestorius. 
05). ONT νὴ: 


(z). Ibid. 
(ἢ. Ibid. 
(m). Ibid. 
(x). Ibid. 


(0). See the Greek in Passage 18 in the proper place further on in Act I. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 253 


ee a_i ne 


~no reputation for us, for what cause should He reject the expressions 
which befit that making himself of no reputation (615)? Therefore 


ee ee ee “- 


On page CIII., of the same Preface, Pusey gives as one rendering of Θεοφόρος, 
“Bearing God,’ whereas its meaning is “ God-borne,”’ that is “ God-inspired”’ 
where Cyril mentions it as used by the Nestorians as, for instance, in his 
Anathema V., in the above Epistle where he condemns and anathematizes the 
expression that Christ is a mere ‘‘ God-inspired Man.” See it translated below. 

We come now to summarize results as set forth in St. Cyril’s replies to the 
above language of Nestorius, and the Council’s condemnation of Nestorius for 
it. Cyril teaches: 

1. That Christians do not eat the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucha- 
vist, and says that it is impossible to do so; and 

2. He denies that It is on the Holy Table. Of course this shows, 

3. That he worshipped nothing on the holy Table; not the Divinity of the 
Word because It is not there; nor the humanity of Christ, because, being a crea_ 
ture, it can not be worshipped as he again and again teaches. I quote: 


(A.) PASSAGES OF ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA IN WHICH HE TEACHES. 
AGAINST NESTORIUS THAT WE DO NOT EAT THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE 
EUCHARIST. 

PASSAGE L. oF ST. CvRIL oF ALEXANDRIA against the heresy of eating the 
Divinity of God the Word in the Lord’s Supper; from his ΕἾΝΕ Book CoNTRA- 
DICTION OF THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS. : 

«5 we eat, NOY CONSUMING THE DIVINITY (AWAY WITH THE BLASPHE- 
MOUS THOUGHT); but the own flesh of the Word which has been made life-giv- 
ing, because it has been made His who liveth because of [or “ through,” or ‘by’ | 
the Father,” (Cyril of Alexandria’s Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphe- 
mies of Nestorius, Book IV., Seéiton 5). 

PASSAGE II. against the blasphemy of asserting an eating of the Divinity of 
the Word in the Eucharist. 

Cyril in his Defense of his Twelve Chapters Against the Orientals, expressly 
treats of the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, in definite answer to Nestorius’ 
taunting references in favor of the literal flesh-eating and blood-drinking sense 
of John vi. 

“Did He say, He that eateth My Divinity and drinketh My Di- 
DEI en i Ae ὯΝ ὦ 

“ After this He [Christ] says even again, He that eateth Me, he also shall 
live (p). WHAT DO WE EAT, THE DIVINITY, OR THE FLESH ?” 

To this Cyril answers, 

“Tu NATURE OF DIVINITY IS NOT EATEN.”’ 


This passage and its context are the more remarkable and noteworthy be- 
cause Cyril’s language occurs in reply to the very language of Nestorius which 


er ae 


(2). John v1., 57. 


254 Act I. of Ephesus. 


all the expressions in the Gospels are to be ascribed to [but] one 
Person, to [but] one infleshed Subsistence (616) of the Word. For, 
according to the Scriptures, Jesus Anointed is [but] ove Lord (617). 


forms the Eighteenth of the Quotations from him in the First Act of the Third 
Ecumenical Synod; and as this reply to the Orientals, and Cyril’s Frve-Book 
Contradiftion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, above quoted on this theme, had 
both been published and circulated prior to the Council, and were of chief and 
indeed xecessary importance in order to understand the great doctrinal questions 
involved in the controversy between Cyril and the heresiarch Nestorius; it is 
therefore fair to presume that they with the other writings of Cyril up to that 
date were read by the Bishops before the Council met, orin the long wait for 
John of Antioch before it began business, and that they furnished the criteria 
and proofs of his heresy, and were the bases on which he was condemned and 
deposed. These facts are all-important, and yet are but little known; and they 
serve to make clear the fact that the Synod approved Cyril’s denial that the 
Divinity of God the Word is eaten in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 


PASSAGE III. of Cyrit, oF ALEXANDRIA against the heresy of believing 
that the Divinity of the Word ts eaten in the Eucharist ; from his ADDRESS ON 
THE RIGHT FAITH TO THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS II: 


‘And THAT THE WORD IS NOT TO BE EATEN * * * IS CLEAR TO US BY 
AS MANY AS TEN THOUSAND REASONS.’’ 


As this letter, as Professor Bright states (g), was written some time before 
the Third Ecumenical Synod met, it is fair and reasonable to presume that it 
formed, with the two documents last cited above, part of the basis and criteria 


for Nestorius’ condemnation and deposition ; and therefore with them also it is 
especially valuable and authoritative. 


PasSAGE IV. of 51. CyRIL OF ALEXANDRIA against the blasphemy of sup. 
posing that any one can eat the Divinity of God the Word: from his genuine 
ADDRESS ON THE RIGHT FAITH TO THK EMPRESSES, which 15 sometimes termed 
the SECOND ; section 56; 

He puts the following poser to some heretics : 


“7 therefore it 1s the Word who came out of Him, bare and by Himself, 
HOW IS HE EATEN BY US IN ORDER THAT WE MAY LIVE BECAUSE OF HIM, 


FOR DIVINITY IS INCORPOREAL BY ITS [very] NATURE?’’ And therefore of 
course, Cyril means, it can not be eaten. 


(B). PASSAGES OF ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDIA IN WHICH HE DENIES THE 
REAL PRESENCE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY IN THE EUCHARIST, 
THAT is in THE THANKSGIVING, AS EUCHARIST MEANS. 


PASSAGE I. of ST. CyRIL, oF ALEXANDRIA 772 which HE DENIES ABSOLUTELY 
THE REAL PRESENCE 0f THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DIVINITY oF GOD THE WoRD 


(7). In his article on Cyril of Alexandria in Smzth and Wace's Diétionary of Christian 
Biography, Vol. 1., page 765. P E. Pusey also assigns the above work to a time before the 


Councii of Ephesus. See page vii. of the Praefatio to Pt. I. of Vol. VII. of his edition of the 
Greek of the Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 255. 


[I]. And though He is called (618) both Afostle, and High 
Priest of our profession (619) as performing the priestly work (620) of 
presenting to the God and Father the profession of faith offered by 


-ON THE TABLE IN THE EUCHARIST, 722 or with the bread and wine: in other 
words his dental of both Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation : from St. 
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA’S FIVE BOOK CONTRADICTION OF THE BLASPHEMIES OF 
Nestorius, Book IV., Section 6, where, writing with reference to one of Nes- 
torius’ objections to God’s truth, he tells him : 


‘“BuTtT THOU SEEMEST TO ME TO FORGET THAT WHAT LIETH FORTH ON 
THE HOLY TABLES OF THE CHURCHES IS BY NO MEANS THE NATURE OF 
DIVINITY.’’ 


Nestorius had asserted that Christ’s humanity is eaten in the Eucharist, not 
his Divinity, supposing that by the assertion that His Divinity was eaten he 
would hit Cyril because he deemed him an Apollinarian and a denier of the 
truth that Christ has humanity. And so, speaking on the Eucharist, he asserts 
that Christ has humanity and proves it by Zechariah xii., 10, where it is said, 
“ They shall look upon him whom they pierced,’” which refers of course to Christ 
as ‘‘ pierced,’’ and then triumphantly asks, ‘ Who then is He who was pierced ? 
The side. Buta side belongs to a body, not to Divinity.’ Wence, Nestorius 
means, there is a humanity of Christ in the Eucharist fo de eaten. We do not 
eat Divinity there. 


To this Cyril replies, 


‘Petty therefore as I said, isthe profit of the UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, (7) because 
perchance it hath not become possible to consume the Nature of the Divinity 
along with the flesh, because we are not in possession of impossibilities [by ] 
having the bare Incorporeal to eat. But thou seemest to me to forget that WHAT 
LIETH FORTH ON THE HOLY TABLES OF THE CHURCHES IS BY NO MEANS THE 
NATURE OF DIVINITY yet it is an own body of the Word who was born out of 
God the Father : and the Word is God by Nature and in truth. Why therefore 
dost thou confound all things and jumble them without understanding, all but 
mocking at our Bread which has come out of heaven and giveth life to the 
World, because it is not called Divinity by the voice of those who have dis- 
coursed on God (τῶν θεηγόρων) but rather a body of Him who hath put on a Man 
for us, that is, of the Word who has come out of God the Father? And why 
(tell me) dost thou call it the Lord’s Body at all, unless thou knowest it to be a 
thing pertaining to God, and God’s? for al/ things are subject to their Maker, - 
(St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Five-Book Contradiftion of the Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, Book IV., Section 6). 


(7). Cyril uses this Orthodox expression again and again. See another instance of it on 
page 236 above in note 599; and see examples of the use of the same expression in other writers 
in that note. See also instances of its use by Cyril again in Sections 5 and 6, Book IV. ot his 
Five Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemties of Nestorius, pages 146 and 1500f P. E. Pusey’s 
translation. The expression, notwithstanding the cavils of Romanists and of others who 
believe in the actual presence of blood in the rite andof its being drunk there, is prohibitive of 
those errors and irreconcilable with them, 


250 Act I. of Ephesus. 


us both to Him and through Him to the God and Father, and more- 
over in the Holy Spirit also (621), nevertheless we say that He is 


Under the last A. above, I have adduced Fassages of St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, in which he teaches against Nestorius that we do not eat the Divinity of 
Christ in the Eucharist. Under B, I have shown that he teaches ¢hat the 
Divinity of Christ ts not on the Holy Table in the Rite. Icomenow: C. 70 
show that HE DENIES THAT WE RECEIVE IN THE EUCHARIST THE DIVINE 
SUBSTANCE OF GOD THE WoRD; THAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS DIVINITY. 
All under this last A, B and C come under head F, on page 250 above, and are 
a summary of what belongs to it. 


(C). PASSAGE I. oF Cyr, OF ALEXANDRIA 7” which he denies that we 
receive in the Eucharist the DIVINE SUBSTANCE of God the Word, that is the 
Substance of His Divinity. 


In his Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, Cyrii expressly teaches 
that the Substance of God the Word is not in us by the Eucharist, but that God 
the Word is in us velatively only, that is, as he explains the expression, by His 
Spirit only which is related to Him as being His Spirit. A great difference 
between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius was as to how God the Word dwelt 
in the Man united to Him, Cyril asserting that the very Substance of the 
Divinity of God the Word was in that Man and abode in him from his concep- 
tion in the womb, came into the World with him out of the Virgin’s womb, and 
has abode in that Man ever since; but Nestorius denied this and asserted that 
God the Word dwelt and dwells in that Man velatzvely only, that is by His Spirit 
only, as He dwelt in the inspired Prophets and Apostles. 


This is a very important question, for if God the Word dwelt in the Man 
united to Him, ὧν the grace of His Holy Spirit only, as He did in the inspired 
Prophets and Apostles, of course there was nothing in the Son to be worshipped, 
because the Substance of the Divinity of God the Word was not in that Man any 
more than it was in the inspired Apostles and Prophets, and hence the Son 
could no more be worshipped than they could be. It would be the sin of Wan 
Service (avipwroharpeia), and therefore of Creature Service (κτισματολατρεία), to bow 
or pray to him, a mere inspired creature according to them, as much as it would 
be to bow to or to pray to the inspired Apostles and Prophets, who were certainly 
mere men. 

Cyril, in passage after passage denounces those errors and heresies of 
Relative Indwelling which denied the Incarnation of God the Word, and gave 
Relative Service to a mere inspired Man, to a mere inspired creature; which, of 
course, is paganism; and is the principle on which to this day the heathen 
attempt to defend their worship of images painted, and graven, altars, relics, 
and other created things, and created persons; the passages of Cyril are in a 
blurred and, on those points, szang/ed translation in the Oxford English render- 
ing of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. See 
in the Jzdex of Greek Words, page 405 in that tome, under σχέσει which means 
by relation, and σχετικήν which means relative, and (under the last term) 
σχετικῶς, which means relatively. The Oxford translator, (to hide his own pagau- 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 257 


the Sole-Born Son Whoas respects His [Divine] Nature has come out 
of God; and we will not assign to a man, another besides Him, 


izing and to help on an impossible union of England with idolatrous and partly 
Nestorianized Rome?) has there wilfully or unlearnedly mistranslated those 
passages. But the impartial reader who will render the Greek faithfully as the 
words mean will have no difficulty in understanding Cyril’s deep detestation of 
the Apostatic (s) twin heresies of the Relative Indwelling and Relative Wor- 
ship of that man. We deal here in treating of the Eucharist with the former. 


Nestorius tried to get over the difficulty by bringing in again the heathen 
principle of relative bowing, that is by asserting that it is right to bow to the 
Man united to the Word, because though THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DIVINITY of 
God the Word was not in that Man, nevertheless He was in him relatively by 
His Holy Spirit. Cyril’s reply to that is that if we may bow ve/aizvely to the 
mere Man, the mere creature united to God the Word, because the grace of the 
Holy Spirit is in him, then inasmuch as the grace of the Holy Spirit was in the 
inspired men of the Old Testament and of the New it would be right to bow 
relatively to them also, and so creature worship would be right. 


Cyril in his Commentary on Luke had been making clear two sorts of 
Indwelling by God the Word not by His Spirit in His Humanity, but 77 ws, which 
js another thing altogether, as follows: 


‘‘He [Christ] dwells in us, first, by the Holy Ghost, and we are His abode, 
according to that which was said of old by one of the holy prophets, for 7 wil 
dwell in them, He says, and lead them and I will be to them a God, and they 
shall be to Me a people (t). 


‘But He is also within us in another way by means of our partaking in the 
oblation of the UNBLOODY OFFERINGS, which we celebrate in the Churches, hav- 
ing received from Him the saving pattern of the rite, as the blessed Evangelist 
plainly shows us in the passage which has just been read (9). For he tells us 
that He took a cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it with one 
another’ (ΟἹ, etc. 


(s.) Canon I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, speaks of any metropolitan who might 
leave that Holy Synod and go over to the Nestorian Conventicle there as “ apostatzzing”’ 
(ἀποστατήσας) and as joining himself ‘ fo the Council of the Apostasy”’ (τῳ τῆς ἀποστασίας 
συνεδρίῳ). Canon II. speaks of provincial Bishops who might leave the Holy Synod and join 
themselves ‘‘fo the Apostasy’”’ (τῃ ἀποστασίᾳ) of Nestorianism, and deposes those who go over 
to the Nestorian Synod as running back ‘ fo the Council of the Apostasy” (τὸ τῆς ἀποστασίας 
συνέδριον). Canon III. forbids the Orthodox to subject themselves to Nestorian Bishops whom 
it stigmatizes as having ‘‘apostatized”’ (ἀποστατήσασιν). And Canon IV. speaks of clerics 
who fall into Nestorianism as having “ afostatized’’ (ἀποστατήσαιεν). 

And surely Nestorianism is creature service, and surely falling into creature service is an 
apostasy from Christ; and so the Synod spake by the Holy Spirit in so deciding. 

(ἢ, Ezek. xxxvii., 27. 

(u). uke xxii., 17-23, where the institution of the Lord’s Supper is mentioned. 

(v). Wuke xxil., 17. 


258 Act I. of Ephesus. 


the name and the office of the Priesthood (622), for He (623) has be- 
come a Mediator between God and men and a Reconciler unto peace,, 


As to the first sort of Indwelling ; Cyril here refers to his own belief and 
that of the ancients that by Baptism a person becomes a temple of the Holy 
Spirit and that the Spirit is given to him daily as he will receive it. 

The second sort of Indwelling by God the Word 2772 us is by the Eucharist. 

Both of these Indwellings, it will be seen from the above, are of God the 
Word by His Holy Spirit, and so are velatzve. For, as to the first, Cyril writes, 
“He [Christ] dwells 7722 us BY THE HOLY GuHosT,”’ etc. 

As to the second he adds: 


‘But He is also within us in another way, by means of our partaking of 
the oblation of the UNBLOODY offerings,’’ etc. And just below Cyril tells us 
that we receive in the Eucharist ‘‘/ife-giving blessing, * * * FOR EVERY 


GRACE and every perfect gift cometh unto us from the Father by the Son in the 
Houy GuHost.”’ 


The Holy Ghost the Quzckener, that is the Giver of Life (John vi., 63; II. 
Cor. iii., 6) is then given to all the baptized daily as they will receive it, accord- 
ing to Cyril and according to Scripture. 

But he has stated above that ‘‘Hx [Christ] zs also within us * * * by 
means of our partaking of the oblation of the unbloody offerings.”’ 


Then the question would naturally arise, How is He within us, by His divine 
Substance,as He dwellsin the man whom He took out of the Virgin ; or relatively, 
that is by His Holy Spirit ? 

And Cyril answers relatively, not by the Substance of His Divinity as the 
Romish Transubstantiationist teaches who says that in the Eucharist ‘‘ave 
verily, really and substantially contained the body and blood, together with the 
souland Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,and consequently the whole Christ(w),’? 
and that ‘‘the whole Christ 1s contained under each species, and under every 
part of each species when separated (x),’’ of course according to this frightful 
blasphemy, if ‘‘ whole Christ’’ is under each fragment on Pask, that ison what 
is called Easter Sunday, for instance, as there are at least a million such frag- 
ments, for at least that number of communicants in the Roman Communion, 
there must be at least one million Second Persons of the Trinity ; and more- 
over in each of one million stomachs there must be ‘‘ verily, really, and 
substantially contained the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,” so that when 
Paddy Pagan or Biddy Idolatry, after worshipping creatures comes out of’ 
Church with the said ‘‘whole Christ, body and blood, soul and pivintrTy ( 2), 
inside of him or her it is plain that God the Word is incarnated, that is, is 


= 


(w). Buckley’s Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, (London, Routledge and Co., 
1851,) page 77: Session XIII., Chap. VIII., Canon I. The same doctrine is taught in the 
Cutechism of the Council of Trent (see page 231 of Buckley’s English translation). 

(x). 70614., Canon III. 


(y). Jb¢d., Canon I. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 259 


by offering himself for ‘az odor of a sweet smell’ (624) to the God 
and Father. And therefore he said, ‘ Sacrifice and offering thou 


infleshed, in Biddy’s stomach as much as He ever was in the Virgin Mary’s: 
womb; and, furthermore, since all agree that wherever the Substance of Divinity 
is there it is to be worshipped, it is impossible to give any good reason why we: 
should not fall down and worship Christ’s Divinity in Paddy’s stomach and 
in Biddy’s. Such arethe ridiculous and abominable and blasphemous and neces- 
sary results of the Romish heresy of the actual reception of the Substance of the 
Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist by the mouth, and in the stomach. 


But Cyril had discussed this matter more than eleven hundred years before 
the heretical local Council of Trent, and by making the Indwelling of God the 
Word in us relative, that is by the sanctifying influences of His Spirit only, not 
by the Substance of His Divinity, had avoided all such blasphemous absurdities, 
as did the Third Ecumenical Synod also which he led. 

I quote therefore Cyril here on this all important matter ; 


‘‘ And let none of those whose wont it is to disbelieve, say, Szuce therefore 
the Word of God, being by Nature Life, dwells in us also, ts the body of each 
one of us too endowed with the power of giving life ? 


‘Rather let him know that it is one thing to have the Son in us by A RELA- 
TIVE PARTICIPATION AND ANOTHER AND A DIFFERENT THING IN EVERY WAY for 
Him to become flesh, that is to make that body His own which was taken out 
of the blessed Virgin. For when He comes into us, He is not said to put on a 
man and to become flesh for that was done once for all when He came [forth 
out of the Virgin’s womb] a man, without ceasing to be God. Therefore the 
body taken out of the holy Virgin and united to Him became the Word’s own 
body ; but how or in what way it is not in us to say, for it is untold and utterly 
uncomprehended, and the manner of the Union is known to Himself alone. 
It was behooving Him therefore to come into us in a GOD BEFITTING MANNER 
BY HIS HOLY SPIRIT,’’ etc. 


Here then, he DIVINE SUBSTANCE of God, the Word, is notin us. It was: 
in the blessed Virgin alone of all creatures, and that Indwelling was the 
Incarnation. And if It were to dwell in any other human being that would bea 
new Incarnation. 


But though God the Word is not in us by His Divine Substance, He is by 
His Holy Spirit which is related to Him as being His Spirit; and so He isin us. 
relatively, that is, by His Holy Spirit. 

Therefore when any Transubstantiationist or Consubstantiationist asserts to 
us that we do not believe that God the Word is in us if we do not believe He is 
in us by His divine Substance, that is in the heretic’s Ecumenically condemned 
sense, we must remember to say in the Words of the Orthodox Cyril: 

‘Rather let him know that it is one thing to have the Son in us by A RELATIVE: 
PARTICIPATION and another and a different thing in every way for Him to be- 
come flesh, that is to make that body His own which was taken out of the blessed 
Virgin ;’’ in other words it is one thing for God the Word to dwell in us by the 


260 Act I. of Ephesus. 


wishedst not; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast 
had no pleasure, but a body hast thou prepared me, Then said 7, Lo, 


sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, and another and an entirely different 
thing for Him to become incarnate of the Virgin (z), that is for Him to enter 
her by His Divine and Eternal Substance, and for that Divine and Eternal 
Substance to wrap Itself in flesh and to put on a Man in her womb and to dwell 
in that Man there, to be in him at birth out of her, and to dwell in him ever 
since. 

Here then in no less than FoUR PLACES, St. Cyril of Alexandria plainly 
teaches that GoD THE WORD CAN NOT BE EATEN. 


And in another passage he even goes further and DENIES THAT THE SUB- 
STANCE OF GOD THE WORD LIES ON THE HOLY TABLES AT ALL, by which ex- 
pression heradically negatives both Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, for 
both those errors necessarily include that and the eating of real flesh and blood, 
for the strict Consubstantiationist holds that the real flesh and blood and the a&tual 
Substance of the Divinity of God the Word are in the bread and wine and re- 
ceived by the mouth in them: and the Transubstantiationist holds that after the 
consecration there is no bread nor wine there, but only the actual flesh and 
blood of Christ with the actual Substance of God the Word, all of which are re- 
ceived in the mouth by the communicant. 


And in still another passage,to make the condemnation of Transubstantiation 
and Consubstantiation still stronger, if it be possible to make it stronger, he 
plainly denies that we receive the divine Substance of God the Word in the 
Lord’s Supper. This ends head F, which begins on page 250 above, which treats 
of the Question of the real presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the 
Eucharist. 

We come now G, 29 the Questions as to the real presence of the actual 
human flesh and human blood of Christin the Lord’s Supper, of their being 
eaten there, and of their being worshipped there. 

What are Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings on those points ? 


The Zransubstantiationist and the Consubstantiationist, both hold that 
Christ’s real flesh and real blood are present in the Eucharist, are to be wor- 
shipped there, and are eaten there. 


As to the worship of Christ’s humanity or any part of it, in the Eucharist, 
Cyril settles the matter at once by his teachings that the Man put on by God 
the Word is not at all worshipable by himself, because he is a creature, that God 
alone may be worshipped, and that in the Son the Substance of God the Word 
only may be worshipped, zwz¢hin [or, with] His own flesh, (μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ 
σαρκός), απα that the Substance of God the Word is not at all present in the 
Eucharist. Hence, according to him, there is nothing of the Son to be wor- 
shipped there. And the whole Church at Ephesus ratified that view. 


We come then, to consider the remaining two questions : 


(z) Something akin to the error above, though not the same, is mentioned in the fourth 
century. For, according to Peltier, among the statements of the heretic Arius before the Alex- 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 261 


7 come (in the volume of the book it ἐς written of me,) to do thy will, O 
God’’ (625). For He has offered His own body as ‘az odor of a 


I. As to the actual presence of Christ’s real flesh and real blood there ; and 
2. As to their being really eaten and drunk by the communicant. 


(D). PASSAGES IN WHICH ST. CYRIL DENOUNCES WHAT HE TERMS THE 
CANNIBALISM OF NESTORIUS’ HERESY OF EATING ACTUAL HUMAN FLESH AND 
DRINKING ACTUAL HUMAN BLOOD IN THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Cyril teaches the truth, 


(a). That we do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of a common man like 
one of us. 


(6). That to do so would be cannibalism, that is man-eating, that is eating 
a man. 


(c). That what we eat and drink ts the body and blood of God the Word, 
which he explains, in effect, to mean not the flesh and blood of a man like one 
of us, but a peculiar flesh and blood of God the Word, that is the bread and 
wine filled with ‘‘the energy of His own flesh.”’ 


(4). That God the Word imparts Himself to us Divinely by His Spirit, 
humanly by His body and blood. Oras St. Cyril expresses it in Section 5 of 
Book IV. of his /ive Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius; 
‘And as the body of the Word Himself is life-giving, He having made it His 
own by atrue union which is above understanding and language, so we also in 
partaking of His holy flesh and blood are made alive in every way and alto- 
gether, the Word remaining in us Divinely by the Holy Spirit, and humanly 
besides by His holy flesh and Hs precious blood.”’ By the expression “‘ humanly 
besides by His holy flesh and His precious blood,’’ he shows that he does not 
mean cannibalism, but that God the Word operates through or with ‘‘ ¢he 


andrian Synod of A.D 315 or 320, was the assertion, ‘‘ That Jesus Christ is not true God, or that 
He is called god by participation only like others.’’ The expression ‘‘others’’ seems to refer to 
Psalm Ixxxii., 6, 7 have said, Ye are gods, etc., and John x., 34, 35, which, properly under- 
stood, convey no such error as Arius with his wonted perversity drew from them. The place 
of Peltier referred to is in his ‘“‘Dicttonnazre des Conciles,”’ under ‘' Alexandrie * * *)) an 315,” 
etc., Migne, Paris, A. D. 1846. 


The Arians asserted of their mere created Word that he could be called god in the sense 
that the word god is applied to Moses in Exodus vii., 1, and to mere civic magistrates and 
judges in Psalm Ixxxii., 6, and John x., 34, 35, that is as representatives of God. 


See Bp. Patrick in his Commentary on those texts, and Rosenmiiller in his Scholia in Vetus 
Testamentum on them. But the word there used is not Jehovah but Elohim, the inferior term, 
But Athanasius shows, against the Arians, that the teri God is given to the Word as being such 
by his eternal and divine Nature. See on that Newman’s English translation of ,5. Athan- 
astus’ Treatises against Arianism, page 236, note ‘‘c,’’ and pages 427, 433, 434, and passim. The 
Church in approving St. Cyril’s Anathema VIII. has declared God’s curse on every one who 
asserts that the perfect humanity of Christ, which is confessedly the highest of all mere 
creatures, ‘‘ought to be co-called God with God the Word * * * as one with Another.” 
the whole of that Anathema in the above Epistle further on. 


Cyril of Alexandria devotes part of a Chapter of his Commentary on the Gospel according 
to John to showing, ‘‘that the Holy Ghostisin the Son not by participation, * * * but 
Essentially and by Nature.” See the Oxford English translation of it, Vol. I., pages 134 to 147. 


See 


262 Act I. of Ephesus. 


sweet smell’ for us, and not for Himself, For what sort of an offer- 
ing or sacrifice did He need for Himself, Who, forasmuch as He is 


things which lie before us,’’ that is the leavened bread and the wine, His body 
and blood not carnally, but in ‘‘exergy’’ to purify and to sanctify our bodies. 


PASSAGE I. Where CyRit, oF ALEXANDRIA denounces the eating of human 
flesh and drinking of human blood in the Eucharist as CANNIBALISM : 


From his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book 
IV., Section 4. 

Nestorius, speaking of the Jews mentioned in John VI., who were scandal- 
ized at Christ’s language as to the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His 
blood, says: 

‘« The hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said: they imagined of 
their unlearning that He was bringing in the EATING OF A MAN.”’ 

To this Cyril at once replies : 

“And how is the thing not plain eating of a man (ἐναργὴς avopwrodayia), and 
in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say that the Word who came out 
of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the mode of that sending was 
the Inman. For then, then we shall see clearly that the flesh which was united 
to Him, and not another’s flesh, avails to give life, and that too because it has 
been made an own flesh (aa) of Him Who is mighty to quicken all things (00). 
For if the visible fire sends the power of its natural inherent energy into 
those substances to which it approaches, and changes water itself though cold by 
nature into that which is contrary to its nature and makes it hot; what won- 
der, or how can one disbelieve that the Word who came out of God the Father, 
being the Life by Nature, rendered the flesh which is united to Him life-giv- 
ing? Forit is His own and not that of any other conceived of as apart from 
Him and as oneof thoselikeus. But if thou remove the life-giving Word of God 
from the mystical and true Union with the body and sever them utterly, how 
canst thou show that it is still life-giving? And Who was it Who said, He that 
eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me and Lin him? (cc) ff, 
then, it be a man by himself (dd) and the Word of God have not rather been made 
as we, THE DEED WERE EATING A MAN (ee) AND WHOLLY UNPROFITABLE 
THE PARTAKING (for I hear Christ Himself say, 7he flesh profiteth nothing, 
it is the Spirit that quickeneth) (ff), for so far as pertains to its own nature, the 


(aa). Or, ‘‘a peculiar flesh.” 

(26), Thatis, of God the Word. 

(cc). John vi., 56. 

(dd). In the fore-quoted passages Cyril denies that the Substance of the Divinity of God the 
Word lies before us in the sacrament. And in other passages also, quoted in this work, ha 
denies that the actual flesh and blood of a man like one of us lie before us on the holy table. 

Nestorius agreed with him on the first point, but held to what St. Cyril brands as can- 
nibalism, that is to the actual eating of Christ’s human flesh and to the actual drinking of His 
human blood. 

(ee). That is, cannibalism. 


(Jf) John vi., 63. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 263 


God, is free from all sin? For although αὐ have sinned and come 
short of the glory of God, (626), inasmuch as we have become prone to 


flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, for it is itself diseased 
with the corruption which belongs to its own nature; but if thou say that it is 
the own body of the Word Himself (gg), why dost thou set forth a MONSTROSITY 
(hh) and talk at random [by] contending that not the Very Word Who has come 
out of God the Father has been sent, but that some other besides Him has been 
sent, that is he who was visible (7), that is the flesh, albeit the God-inspired 
Scripture everywhere proclaimeth one Christ, full well affirming that the Word 
was made a man like us, and defining in those words the tradition of the right 
faith.” 


PasSAGE II. of Cyril of Alexandria, against the real presence of the actual 
flesh and the a€tual blood of a Man like one of us in the Eucharist on the holy 
table, and the CANNIBALISM of eating them there: and his advocacy of the 
doctrine that instead He “sends the power of life into the things which lie before 
us’? that is into the bread and wine; ‘‘and changes them to the ENERGY Q 
Hits own flesh,” etc. 


From his Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke. 


In this work, while Cyril plainly teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a means 
of grace and blessing, he does not attribute the blessing to cannibalism, but in 
effect to the life giving power of God the Word, which is 567: * into the things 
which lie before us,” so that it quickens through them. It is the grace of the 
Word by His Spirit for, as we see by the passages quoted from him above, he 
shows that we do not eat God the Word. 


We have seen that Cyril blames Nestorius for not holding that God 
the Word’s Divine Substance indwelt the Man united to Him, and for 
teaching that the Word indwelt him relatively only, that is by his Holy Spirit 
only, as He dwelt in the prophets and other holy men. This fixes the sense of 
yelatively in such passages in Cyril. In other words Nestorius held that God 
the Word indwelt that Man by the Spirit only, which is related to Him as being 
His Spirit. 

And in connection with this theme, Cyril puts and answers a question as fol- 
lows: 


eS a AN ee nee 


(gg). Or, ‘the peculiar body of the Word Himself.” 


(hh). The ‘‘ monstrosity” referred to by Cyril here is the assertion of Nestorius that we are 
cannibals in the Eucharist. For of course we are such, if we eat the actual flesh and drink 
the actual blood of the Man put on by the Word. 


Cardinal Du Perron, an apostate from the Reformed to the creature-service of Romanism, 
seems on his dying bed to have confessed that his doctrine of transubstantiation, which im 
plies and indeed necessarily includes Man-eating, that is Cannibalism, is what Cyril terms 
Man-eating, ‘a monstrosity,” for it 15 said that when one asked him then what he thought of 
transubstantiation, he replied Monstrum est; ‘‘Jtis a Monster,”’ or “Tt zs a Monstrosity.” 

(12). That is the mere man united to God the Word according to Nestorius’ hypothesis, for 
he denied that the Substance of God the Word was in that Man. He admitted only His 
Spirit’s influence in him as in one of the inspired Apostles or Prophets. 


264 Act I. of Ephesus. 


stray, and man’s nature is diseased with sin (627), nevertheless 
He (628) is not so; and therefore we come short of His glory 


‘‘And let none of those whose wont it is to disbelieve, say, Szuce therefore 
the Word of God being by Nature life (77) dwells in us also, is the body of each 
one of us too endowed with the power of giving life 2?” 

To this Cyril, without any break, at once replies : 


‘Rather let him know that it is one thing to have the Son in us bya RELA- 
TIVE PARTAKING (£4), AND ANOTHER AND A DIFFERENT THING IN EVERY WAY 
FOR HIM TO BECOME FLESH, THAT IS, TO MAKE THAT BODY HIS OWN WHICH WAS 
TAKEN OUT OF THE HOLY VIRGIN. FOR WHEN HE COMES INTO US HE 15 NOT 
SAID To put on a Man and to become flesh ; for that was done once for all when 
He came forth [out of the Virgin’s womb] a Man without ceasing to be God. 
Therefore the body taken out of the holy Virgin and united to Him became the 
Word’s own body: but how or in what way it is not in us to say, for it is untold 
and utterly uncomprehended, and the manner of the union is known to Himself 
alone. It was behooving Him therefore to come into us BY THE HoLy SPIRITvT, 
God-befittingly, and, so to speak, to mingle Himself with our bodies by His holy 
flesh and His precious blood; which things we have also for a life-giving Bless- 
ing as in leavened bread and wine. For that we may not be stupefied [with hor- 
ror] by seeing flesh and blood lying before us on the holy tables of the churches, 
God, condescending to our weaknesses, SENDS THE POWER OF LIFE INTO THE 
THINGS WHICH LIE BEFORE US (//) AND CHANGES THEM TO THE ENERGY OF 
HIS OWN FLESH, IN ORDER THAT WE MAY HAVE THEM FOR A LIFE-GIVING 
PARTAKING AND THAT THE BODY OF THE LIFE MAY BE FOUND IN US AS A LIFE- 
GIVING SEED. And do not doubt that this is true, for He Himself says plainly, 
This is my body (mm), and This 15 my blood (nn), but rather receive the word of 
the Saviour in faith: for, being Truth, He does not lie (00). And so wilt thou 
honor Him; for as the very wise John says, He that receiveth His witness hath 


(77). Thatisas God. Compare John i., 1-15; John vi., 26-64, and John xiv.. 6. 


(kk). Cyril just below explains a Relative Partaking of Christ to be a partaking of Him by 
His Spirit which is related to Him as being His Spirit. and by the leavened bread and the wine 
which are related to the Word as being His body and blood in the sense that the Word ener- 
gizesthem by His Spirit and makes them life-giving. These area Relative Indwelling of us by 
Christ because they are by His Spirit and by the leavened bread and wine only, and not at all 
by the actual Substance of His Divinity, and by the actual Substance of His human flesh and 
blood which were born of Mary, all of which substances are Jocally present now in heaven 
alone at the right hand of the Father in our Mediator there. 


The Virgin Mary alone of mortals was indwelt by the actual Substance of the Word’s 
Divinity and by the actual substance of His humanity which indeed he took from her, and 
that indwelling constituted the Incarnation. This explanation of Cyrilis strong and decisive 
against any actual reception of the Substance of the Word’s Divinity, or the Substance of His 
humanity by any other human being. 

(77) That is, of course, the '‘ leavened bread and wine’’ just mentioned by Cyril. 

(mm). Matt. xxvi., 26. 

(nn). Matt. xxvi., 28. 


(00). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 72, col. 909. 9. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep. Com- 
ment.in Lucam. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 265 


(629). How therefore can it be longer doubtful that the true Lamb 
(630) has been sacrificed on our account and in our behalf? And to 


set his seal that God is true. For He whom God sent speaketh the words of God 
(pp). For the words of God are of course true, and in no manner whatsoever can 
they be false; for even though we understand not in what way God worketh acts 
such as these, yet He Himself knoweth the way of His works. For when Nico- 
demus could not understand His words concerning holy baptism, and foolishly 
said, How can these things be (gq), he heard Christ in answer say, Verily 7 say 
unto you, that we speak that which we know, and testify that which we see, and 
ye receive not our testimony. If I have spoken unto you the earthly things, and 
ye believe not, how will ye believe uf I tell you the heavenly things? (rr). For 


(pp). John ili., 33) 34. 
(gq). John iii., 9. 


(vv). John iii., 11,12. The above passage is found in the Syriac translation also, and is ren- 
dered into English from it by Dean R. Payne Smith. See his ‘‘ Commentary upon the Gospel 
according to S. Luke, by S. Cyril. Patriarch of Alexandria, now first translated into English 
from an ancient Syriac Version, by R. Payne Smith, M. A., Sublibrarian of the Bodleian 
Library” (Oxford Univer. Press 1859), pages 668, 669. It may be instructive and profitable at 
this point as serving to show how careful we should be not to accept too rashly and incau- 
tiously any doubtful statement of an old Christian writer, to state that R. Payne Smith shows 
that two passages of the Greek. not of the above part but of another, on Luke *' ave not ac- 
knowledged by the Syriac’’ translation, which is ancient. One of them he seems not to have 
placed in any author, the other he shows to be from Cyril’s work De Adorat., and consequently 
it seems to have been taken by some Catenist thence and placed in its present position in the 
collection from Cyril and others which is called his Commentary on Luke. See R. Payne 
Smith’s English translation of the Syriac translation of Cyril's Commentary on Luke, vol. 2, 
page 663, note ‘ 1. Andon page 629, note “‘o,”’ Smith tells us that “ the Syriac omits several 
short sentences found in the Catene interesting chieflyas showing the nature of the remarks 
occastonally inserted by the Catentsts, wherever they imagined that explanation was required.” 


Then he gives some instances and then shows that a passage of fourlines in Cyril on Luke 
there is from Theophylact, who. by the way, lived in the eleventh century and then confesses 
that he was ‘‘ unable to trace,’ another of those extracts. For Cyril’s statements,in his Com- 
mentary on Luke’s Gospel,on the Eucharist, quoted in this work, I rely especially on such 
as are preserved to us as his by both the Syriac translation and by the Catenist’s Greek of the 
Commentary on Luke. From the Greek asin the Commentary on Luke, xxii., 17-22, part of the 
passage above which professes to represent Cyril of Alexandria on a similar place on Mat- 
thew. seems to be taken. Smith in his Preface to his translation of the Syriac of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke tells us that he had rejected * nearly a third” of the Greek 
extracts of St. Cyril on that Gospel which Cardinal Mai had found in the Catenists. Ashe 
‘ tells us that those fragments gathered by Mai ‘ from twelve different Catena, together with a 
Latin translation, occupy more than 300 quarto pages’’ *'in the 2d vol. of his[Mai’s] Bzd. Pat. 
Nova” he must have rejected nearly a hundred quarto pages of them. Smith compliments 
Mai for his assiduous labor in gathering those extracts from so many different Catenz, but 
adds: 


‘But the critical acumen of Mai was by no means commensurate with hisindustry. With 
the usual fault of collectors. the smallest amount of external evidence was sufficient to override 
the strongest internal improbability; nor apparently did his reading extend much beyond 
those Manuscripts, among which he labored with such splendid results. At all events, though 
Cyril was an author whom he greatly valued, not only does he ascribe to the Commentary ”’ [on 
Luke] "8 vast mass of matter really taken from Cyril’s other works, but even numerous ex- 
tracts from Theophylact, Gregory Nazianzen. and other writers, whose style and method of 
interpretation are entirely opposed to the whole tenor of Cyril’s mind. 


266 Act I. of Ephesus. 


say that He offered Himself both for Himself and for us, is without 
doubt to share in the crimes of impiety; for He erred in no way, nor, 
moreover, did He commit sin. What sort of an offering there- 


how indeed can a man learn those things which transcend the powers of our 
mind and reason? Let therefore this our mystery of God be honored by 
faith (ss).”’ 


Although it scarcely belonged to my undertaking to sift these extracts, yet, as it might 
have thrown a suspicion upon the genuineness of the Syriac Version to find it unceremoniously 
rejecting nearly a third of what Mai had gathered. I have in most cases indicated the work or 
author to whom the rejected passages belong. A few stillremain unaccounted for; but as the 
principle of Niketas, the compiler of the chief Catena upon 5. Luke, confessedly was to gather 
from all Cyril’s works whatever might illustrate the Evangelist’s meaning, and as in so doing 
he often weaves two or even three distinct extracts into one connected narrative, it is no 
wonder if it was more easy to gather such passages than to restore the disjecta membra [that is 
εὐ members torn apart'’|to their original position. Several extracts also which escaped mie at 
the time have since met my eye,of which the only one of importance is the remarkable explan- 
ation of the two birds at the cleansing of the leper, conf. Com.on Luke v., 14, and which is 
taken from a letter of Cyril to Acacius.’’ See Smith’s Preface to his translation of Cyril’s Com- 
mentary on Luke, pages xvii. and xviii. 


These facts may serve to stimulate investigation as to what may be Cyril’s in his Commen- 
tary on Matthew, and what is not. One would think that the Commentaries are sometimes 
more interpolated than some other works of Cyril: though as we shall see in the proper place, 
ancient writers testify that Monophysites had in their day corrupted the Greek text of some 
of them. Yet where the Greek and the Syriac of Cyril’s Commentaries agree we feel surer. 


It should be remembered also that Smith, on page xvii. of the same Preface, states that he 
had translated Greek remains of the Commentary on Luke, ‘‘wherever the MS. of the Syriac 
was unfortunately defective.’ See instances mentioned in note ‘‘a,’”’ page 1, of that Commen- 
tary. Note ‘‘t,’”’ page 39, id., shows that the Catenists sometimes added something of their 
own to a quotation, as may be the case some may think, with some few words in a quotation 
from Cyril on Matthew above; I mean those which say that the bread and wine of the Kucha- 


rist are not a type. 


I would add that in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 72, columns 365, 366, the beginning of 
St. Cyrilof Alexandria’s Comment. on Matthew, bears the following heading. I translate the 
Latin: ‘* Supplement to the edition of J. Aubert, ‘* What remains of the Comments of St. Cyril 
on Matthew picked out of the Catenz of Corderius and of Possinus, with which are intermixed 
fragments which J. A. Cramer has published from the Coislin Codex [ex Codice Coisliniano]. 
and Angelo Mai from Vatican Codexes.”’ 


In the same columns the author of a note tells us that the comment at the beginning of the 
Commentary of St. Cyril on Matthew is taken ‘‘ froma Vatican Catena in which tt ts attributed 


to Origen.”’ 
Another fragment of that Commentary, in columns 391, 392, we are there told in a note, is 
attributed to Nicetas in the Catena of Corderius, but in a Vatican Codex to Cyril of Alexandria. 


Again, in a note in column 395, id., we are informed as to another part of this Commentary 
on Matthew, ‘* This long passage 15 read below on Luke v1., 73,’’ [that is, in St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria’s Comments on Luke], ‘‘ where it ts satd to be taken from a certain Homily of Cyril.” In 
columns 455-458, id., the annotator tells us that “a Atstoric fragment of the genealogy of Christ 
the Lord” has been variously attributed both to Cyril of Alexandria and also to Hippolytus 
Thebanus.”’ 

In the same tome 72 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, the editor at the beginning writes: 
‘“‘TLectori. Post absolutum hunc tomum, compertum habuimus, Londini, curis viri doctissimi 
Payne Smith, bibliothecae Bodleianae praefecti, nuper prodiisse textum Syriacum Commen- 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 267 


fore did He need, seeing that He had no sin? Though if he 
had sin it could have been offered for it, and that with very good 
reason. 


PASSAGE III. of Cyril, OF ALEXANDRIA against the eating of the Lord’s 
human flesh and against drinking His human blood in the Eucharist. 


From his Apology for the Twelve Chapters Against the Orientals, under 
Anathema XT, 


Cyril writing of a passage from Nestorius on the Eucharist in which that 
heresiarch pleads for the eating of Christ’s humanity in the sacrament, and 
refuting it, says that the Nestorians by representing ‘‘our Sacrament to be an 
EATING OF A MAN’S FLESH,”’ are guilty of ‘‘UNHOLILY bringing the mind of 
believers to notions of wickedness.’ In ‘‘ notions of wickedness (tz),’’ he includes 
“the eating of a Man’s flesh,” of which he had just spoken, that is cannzbal- 
ism (avipwrogayia). 


The passage of Nestorius is the eighteenth of the Twenty of his in Act I. of 
the Third Ecumenical Synod, on the basis of which he was condemned and 
deposed by the Universal Church in that Council. 


See it and Cyril’s Answer on pages 251, 260, 261, and 262, Passage I. above. 
See further in the Apology of Cyril against the Orientals, that is in his Defence 
of his XII. Chapters, under Anathema XI., below quoted. 


PasSAGE IV. oF CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA against CANNIBALISM, that is 
agaiust eating Christ’s real human flesh and drinking His real human blood, in 
the Lord's Supper; and his denunciation of Nestorius’ Man-Eating in the rite as 
“doing away unlearnedly the force of the Mystery,” that is Sacrament, and his 
teaching that ‘‘for that very reason and with great justice has the Anathema- 
tism (X1.) been set forth.” 


From his Explanation of the Twelve Chapters spoken at Ephesus. 


Cyril of Alexandria here says: 
SS a se 
tarii S. Cyrilli in Lucam in quo depre henditur primigenia operis forma, contra quam in 
Maiana editione, in qua, ut judicarunt viri docti, multa leguntur a Theophylacto et aliis deri- 
vata. Translated, the above is as follows: 


‘““ To the Reader.—After this tome was completed, we found that by the care of the most 
learned man, Payne Smith, Sublibrarian of the Vatican, the Syriac text of St. Cyril’s Commen- 
tary on Luke had lately appeared at London, in which the original form of the work is discov- 
ered, contrary to that form which is in Mai’s edition, in which as learned men have judged, 
many things are read which have been derived from Theophylact and from others.’ 


{5}. 1016: 


(tf. Or ‘‘ fading thoughts,” or ‘‘ thoughts of perdition,” or “* pertshing thoughts,’ or *‘ non- 
nourishing thoughts,” or *‘ dead thoughts.’’ The Old Latin translation, on page 361, of tome 
VI. of the Greek of Cyril, Pusey’s edition, renders here, ‘ hominis manducationem nostrum 
dicit esse mysterium, in perditas cogitationes scelerate convertens animos auditorum, et 
humanis ratiocinationibus ea subjiciens quae * * * et inexquisita fide creduntur? Neque 
enim, quod Deitas non manducatur, ideo sanctum Christi corpus dixeris esse commune.”’ 


208 Act Δ of Ephesus. 
reer --ΟοῶἼ-ςς:-ς- - 


[J]. And when He says of the Spirit, ‘He shall glorify me’ 
(631), we perceive correctly and assert that the one Anointed and 


“Explanation XI, 


We perform in the Churches the holy and life-giving and UNBLOODY sacri- 
fice, NOT BELIEVING WHAT LIES BEFORE US TO BE THE BODY OF ONE OF THOSE 
LIKE us and of a common man, and so likewise we hold as to the precious blood; 
but receiving them rather as having become a peculiar body (issov σῶμα) anda 
peculiar blood (wz) of the Word Who giveth life to all things. For common 
flesh CAN Not give life. And to this the Saviour Himself is witness when He 
says, ‘‘ Zhe flesh profiteth nothing : it is the Spirit That giveth life”’ (vv). 
For because it has become a peculiar (ἰδία) flesh (ww) of the Word, for 
that very reason it is deemed and is life-giving, as the Saviour Himself says, 
As the living Father hath sent Me and 7 live by the Father, so also he that eateth 
Me he also shall live by Me (xx). But sincelVestorius and those who hold his 
opinions do away UNLEARNEDLY THE FORCE OF THE MYSTERY (yy), for that 
very reason, and with great justice has the Anathematism (XI.) been set forth.’’ 

PASSAGE V. oF CyRIL, OF ALEXANDRIA AGAINST CANNIBALISM in the 
Lora’s Supper, that is against the error of eating veal human flesh and drink- 
ing real human blood there; from his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. 


In this Commentary which may be somewhat interpolated, as R. Payne 
Smith shows us that the Commentary on Luke is (22), nevertheless enough of 
Cyril is found to show that he teaches that Christ’s real human body and His 
real human blood are not on the holy table at all, nor are they eaten, but the 
bread and wine into which the Word sends His own sanctifying energy are. And 
we must remember in this connection Cyril’s own doctrine that, * God the 
Father therefore giveth life to all things by the Son in the Holy Ghost.’ See 
these words quoted elsewhere in this work from Cyril on Luke xxii., 17-22, 
where also is found the further statement that ‘‘ Zvery grace and every perfect 
gift cometh unto us from the Father by the Son in the Holy Ghost,’’ words, as 
the context shows, used in this last place of the 7) hanksgiving, that is the 
Lord’s Supper itself. 

Cyriluses the expression Jody and 6/ood for the symbols as does Christ 
and his Apostle Paul, and as the whole Church has done from the beginning. 
Yet he shows that he does not forget the chief importance of the spiritual grace 
which they convey to the worthy recipient. For he writes that, ‘‘ He gave to 
us both His own body and blood that the might of corruption might be dissolved 
through them, and that He might dwell in our souls by THE HOLY SPIRIT and 
en a a eee 

(uu). Or, “ας having been made an own body and an own blood.” 
(vv). John vi., 63. 
(ww). Or, ‘tan own flesh.” 
(vx). John vi., 57- 
(yy). That is by doing away with its pre-eminently spivitually-forceful charaéier, and by 
bringing cannibalism into it and so degrading it. 
(zz). See note ‘‘rr’’ above. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 269 


. τι͵ -7τ7τ-Ὰτ6““[ῃ;..------ο-ρρ---Ῥ--- 


Son has received glory from the Holy Spirit, not that He needed glory 
from another, for His Spirit is neither better than Himself (632), nor 


a 


that we might become SHARERS OF SANCTIFICATION and might be called 
heavenly and SPIRITUAL meén.”’ 


And just below he writes : 


““ Wherefore we also placing the things aforesaid [that is the bread and 
wine above-mentioned by Cyril] ‘‘ under God’s sight, pray earnestly that they 
may be remodeled [or ‘remoulded,’ μεταπλασθῆναι) for us into THE SPIRITUAL 
BLESSING iz order that when we partake of them we may be SANCTIFIED BODILY 
AND SPIRITUALLY.”’ 


Then comes the assertion that the bread and wine ave nota type. But is 
this strange language Cyril’s or a Catenist’s; or some writer’s quoted here by a 
Catenist without naming him as is not unusual, as Dean R. Payne Smith as 
above shows. However that may be, if the words be shown hereafter to be 
Cyril’s I should prefer to understand his meaning to be that they are not a mere 
type, but as he shows in this very passage below are made the containers of the 
“energy” of His body. And this interpretation accords with the rest of the pas- 
sage which speaks of the dvead and wine, and denies that Christ’s real human 
flesh and real human blood are on the table at all, which, of course, amounts in 
effect to a denial that they are received by us, for all Transubstantiationists and 
all real Consubstantiationists hold that they are on the Holy Table and are 
thence received into our mouths. 


Besides the learned George Stanley Faber in his invaluable Difficulties of 
Romanism (Third Edition, 1853, London, Bosworth, pages 244 to 254), shows 
that writers before Cyril had spoken of the bread and wine by the synonyms 
types or symbols, that is Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria 
and Tertullian, all of whom were born in Century II.; and sospoke Macarius, 
Cyril of Jerusalem or the writer under his name, and Gregory of Nazianzus; 
all of whom lived in Century IV., except perhaps the writer under the name 
of Cyril of Jerusalem; and Augustine of Century IV. and V., who died just 
before Ephesus. And in the same work Faber has shown that even much 
later the bread and wine were called types or symbols. See page 291 and after. 


And against the false assertion of the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. 
D. 787, that the Fathers did not so name them after consecration, he shows that 
«‘Trenaeus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John”’ did (id., page 
245), and that Gregory of Nazianzus did (id. page 254-256). 


Then below St. Cyril explains his assertion that Christ is mixed “‘z7¢h our 
bodies through His holy flesh and His precious blood,” as follows: 


“We have those things for a life-giving Blessing as in both bread and 
wine 7” order that we may not be struck numb [with horror] by seeing flesh and 
blood lying before us on the holy tables of the churches. For God accommo- 
dating Himself to our weaknesses SENDS THE POWER OF LIFE INTO THE 


270 Act 1, of Ephésus. 


superior to Himself, but forasmuch as He (633) used His own Spirit 
to do great works in order to show forth His own Divinity, He there- 


THINGS WHICH LIE BEFORE US, AND CHANGES (μεθίστησιν) THEM TO THE EN- 
ERGY OF HIS OWN LIFE (@).”’ 


The words from ‘‘ /¢ was necessary that He should be mixed up,’’ to ““ energy 
of His own life,’ inclusive, seem to be merely a modified form of words quoted 
above from Cyril on Luke xxii., 17-22. Seeit in R. Payne Smith’s English 
translation of the Syriac of Cyril’s Commentary on Luke, page 668. I suspect 
therefore that the Catenist on Matthew took them from Cyril on Luke, but do 
not feel absolutely certain. The passage in Luke has more which he did not 
quote on Matthew. 


PASSAGE VI., Of Cyril of Alexandria Against Cannibalism in the Thanks- 
giving, that 1s the Lord’s Supper, that is against eating real human flesh and 
drinking veal human blood there. From his Commentary on the Gospel accord- 
ing to John. 

Cyril in commenting on ‘‘ John vi., 62: ‘‘ Doth this offend you? 77 there- 
Jore ye see the Son of Man ascending up to where He was before,’ shows how 
fundamentally and grievously the Jews erred by understanding Him in the lit- 
eral cannibal sense of eating his human flesh and blood. For he writes: 


‘“FROM THEIR VERY GREAT LACK OF LEARNING, some of those who were 
being discipled under the Saviour Anointed were offended at His words, For 
BECAUSE THEY HEARD HIM SAYING, “Verily, Verily, I say unto you, unless ye 
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink Fs blood, ye have no life in you, they 
supposed that they were called to some SAVAGENESS BEFITTING A WILD ANI- 
MAL, AS THOUGH THEY WERE COMMANDED INHUMANLY TO EAT FLESH AND TO 
SUP UP BLOOD AND [as though they were] TO BE COMPELLED TO DO THINGS 
WHICH ARE HORRIBLE EVEN TO HEAR OF. FOR THEY KNEW NOT THE BEAUTY 
OF THE MYSTERY AND THAT MOST BEAUTIFUL ECONOMY DEVISED FOR IT.”’ 


And then below, Cyril after thus showing that we are not caznzba/ls, states in 
effect that our eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are spiritual. 

See what I have written in explanation of this passage above. 

Five documents of St. Cyril of Alexandria appeared before the Third Ecu- 
menical Council met, and must have powerfully influenced it in making up its 
Decisions against the first two of the three great errors of Nestorius, namely, 


I. His denial of the Incarnation of God the Word. 


2. His Man-Worship, that is his Creature-Worship, that is his Co-Worship 
of a merely human Christ with God the Word; and 

Three of them are definite also against what St. Cyril calls his Cannibalism 
(avOpwrogayia) on the Eucharist, which is the third Great Nestorian heresy. 

Those documents are: 

1. Cyril’s Shorter Epistle approved by vote in Act I. of Ephesus above. 


(a). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 72, col. 452. The Greek will be given in full, God 
willing, in the Dissertation on the Eucharist in this Set. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 271 


fore says that He was glorified by It; just as any one of those like 
us for instance, might say of the strength in him, or of his scientific 


2. His Longer Epistle above which has the XII. Chapters, which was also. 
approved by Ephesus. 

3. His Pive-Book Condemnation of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 

4. His Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Orientals; and 

5. His Defence of His XII. Chapters Against Theodoret. 

We may add, 

6. His ‘‘ Haplanation of the XII. Chapters spoken in Ephesus by Cyril, 
Archbishop of Alexandria, when the Holy Synod asked him to explain their 
sense more clearly to them,’’ as its heading is on page 340 οὗ Vol. VI. of P. E. 
Pusey’s Greek of Cyril. The part of it on the Eucharist, that is on St. Cyril’s 
Eucharistic Anathema, which is Anathema XI. of his XII. approved with the 
above Epistle at Ephesus, is quoted in full in this note, on page 236 above. See 
it there. 

Document 1, Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, has nothing very note- 
worthy on the rite of the Thanksgiving (Εὐχαριστία), but treats fully on heresy 1 
and on heresy 2, of Nestorius just mentioned. 


Document 5, Cyril’s Defence of his XII. Chapters Against Theodoret, has 
something on Cyril’s Eucharistic Anathema XI., but it does not treat of canni- 
balism here under discussion. Insteac Theodoret accuses Cyril of holding to 
the Apollinarian heresy that Christ’s flesh is mere flesh without a real mind, 
and that hence His humanity is ‘‘ wot a perfect man.’ In reply Cyril denies 
that slander, and in such a way as to show that he held the Orthodox do¢irine 
against the Marcionite or Docetic error advocated by Pusey and by his disciple 
Orby Shipley (0) in our time that Christ’s body is not a real material body, but 
that while in heaven it may be as large as a common man, yet in the Eucharist 
it actually exists entire in each particle of the wafer or bread, and His blood is 
in each one of hundreds of millions of drops of the wine (c). I quote Cyril: 


‘‘But it did not seem to the holy Fathers that a man had been [merely] 
adopted by God. For they did not sothink. Why should they? But on the 
contrary they say that the Word Who came out of God was made a Man united 
to flesh having the intellectual soul, and that the Union was without mixture 
[of the Two Natures] and entirely free from [any] change [in them], for the 
Word of God is unchangeable; and so we believe (d).”’ 


(6). Shipley afterwards betook himself in body at last to Rome, whose idolatry on the 
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper he had held for years in his soul while professedly an Anglican. 
Shame on his Bishop that he suffered his traitorous and corrupting presence so long. 


(c). See on that Harrison’s Answer to Dr. Pusey’s Challenge, Vol. 1., pages 27 to 36, and 
104-106, and 261-269, and 282 to 287; and Vol. II., pages 342, and 354, No. 12 and 33. 


(4). P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of the Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Vol. VI., 
page 490. There is a passage of Cyril, at the end of his Shorter Epistle, on pages 107-111 above, 
which plainly confesses the perfection of Christ’s humanity and the Two Natures against the 
Apollinarians. See also to the same effect the Longer Epistle above and Cyril’s Five-Book Con- 
tradiction. 


272 Act I. of Ephesus. 


knowledge on any topic whatsoever, They shall glorify me. For 
although the Spirit exists in Its own Subsistence (634), and is also 


But while the whole Six Documents aforesaid contain more or less on the 
first two heresies we must look for fuller statements on the third, the Eucharistic 
Heresy, to Documents 2, 3, and 4. 

The Eucharistic teaching of Document 2 is given in full above. 


That in Document 3 is found mainly in Book IV. of St. Cyril’s Five-Book 
Contradittion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. It is accessible in the Greek in 
different editions of Cyril; and in an English translation in Pusey’s S. Cyril of 
Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, where Book IV. fills pages 
125-154, and is therefore too long to give here. But I have quoted very perti- 
nent and very important parts of it above in this note. See pages 251, 252, 253 
to 256, 261, 262 and 263. 

There remains the Eucharistic doctrine of Document 4, that is Cyril’s 
Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Ortentals. It quotes in full, though 
in a somewhat different form, the Eighteenth of the Twenty heretical Passages 
culled from Nestorius’ writings in Act I. of the Third Synod, refutes it and 
states against it the Orthodox doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, embracing its two 
great tenets, namely: 

I. The Substance of the Divinity of God the Word is not on the Holy 
Table in the rite, is not eaten by the communicant, aud is not in him. See 
pages 250-260 of this note above. 


2. The real flesh of Christ is not eaten in the rite nor is His blood drunk 
there, but through the leavened bread and the wine the power and the energy of 
His body are imparted to us to our quickening and salvation. Seein this note 
pages 260 and after. Compare pages 233, 234, 235, and 236. 


I quote a long passage of it as being a summary of the whole controversy 
on those points, After that I will, God willing, treat of the idolatry of wor- 
shipping Christ’s Divinity or Humanity in the Eucharist. 


This place is as follows: 


CyRIL OF ALEXANDRIA’S Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Ori- 
entals, under Chapter XI., page 356, of Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the 
Greek of Cyril. 

““But because the Word Who came out of God the Father is Life by Nature 
He has made His own flesh (6) life-giving; and for that very reason the Blessing 
(/) has been made life-giving to us. And therefore Christ said, Verily, verily, 
7 say unto you, Tam the Living Bread Who came down out of the heaven, and 


(6). Greek, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα. 

(Gas Εὐλογία, that is the Eucharist, because Christ blessed (εὐλογήσας) the loaf at the 
Lord’s Supper before He brake it; Matt. xxvi., 26, and Mark xiv.,22. And Paul speaks of 
‘the cup of blessing which we bless’ (1. Cor. x., 16), for blessing God for his mercies has ever 
been, after Christ’s example, a part of the rite. In Luke xxii., 19, Christ is said to have given 
thanks (εὐχαριστήσας) over the loaf before he brake it, as also in I. Cor. xi., 24; and this giving 
of thanks was accompanied with blessing therefore. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 273 


thought of as by Itself, forasmuch as It is the Spirit and not the Son, 
nevertheless It is not foreign to Him, for It has been named ,522712 


give life to the world (g),; and again, dnd the Bread which Iwill give is my 
jiesh for the life of the world (h): and again, He that eateth my flesh and drink- 
eth my blood abideth in me and [in him (1). See therefore how he everywhere 
names His own (7) that body which was born out of a woman, because of the 
most excellent union. Though this is the doctrine of the Mystery (£), yet Nes- 
torius again (4) in his Ha planation says: 

‘Hear therefore and give heed to the following utterances: He says, He 
that eateth my flesh Remember that what He says refers to THE FLESH, and 
that the expression /lesh has not been added by me, lest I seem to them to mis- 
interpret. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood (m). Did he say, He 
that eateth My Divinity and drinketh My Divinity? He that eateth My flesh 
and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me and Lin him(n). Remember that this is 
said regarding THE FLESH. But I sometimes misinterpret [Cyril says]. Let us 
hear then what follows: As the living Father hath sent me; (0) he [Cyril] says 
this means THE Divinity, I say [it means] THE HUMANITY. Whois it that 
misinterprets? As the living Father hath sent me (p), the heretic [Cyril] says 
means THE DIVINITY. Does He [Christ] say The living Father hath sent me, 
God the Word as they interpret? Does And 7 live mean And 7 God the 
Word live by the Father? Then after this He [Christ] says even again, He that 
eateth me, he also shall live (gq). WHAT DO WE EAT, THE DIVINITY OR THE 
FLESH ?’ 

[To this I reply], ‘That we have already treated at length of such absurd 
and random nonsense uttered by him [Nestorius]. But what he means by 
saying that it is not God the Word who has ¢aken flesh and put on a man (r), 
and has been sent; and, again by putting ¢hat which is seen [the man], 
to use his own language, by itself and apart, I can not say; rather I would say 
that his sophism is even now evident. For he destroys the plan of the Union in 
order that the Anointed One’s body may be found a common body and no longer 
in truth an own body (s) of Him Who is able to quicken all things. Small 


(g). John vi., 32, 33, 47 to 52. 

(A]. John vi., 51. 

(2). John vi., 56. 

(7). Greek, ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα. 

(k). Or Sacrament. Where the West has generally used Sacrament, which means Sacred 
Rite, the Greeks have used the word Mystery ( μυστήριον); as in this passage. 

(ἢ. Or, ‘‘on the contrary.” 

(m). John vi., 54, 56. 

(σι). John vi., 56. 

(0). John vi., 57. 

(2). Ibid. 

(q). Ibid. 

(vr). Nicene Creed. 

(s). Or, “ἃ peculiar body,” idcov, 


214 Act I. of Ephesus. 
Oh ie ar es a a al «ὐὐϑϑϑΝ 


of Truth, and Anointed (635) is the Truth (636) And the Spirit 
os hy Ee OMA Eee ees ἐν ee oS SR Se ee 
indeed, confessedly are all human things to God the Word, but since for our 
sakes He deigned to endure the being made of no reputation (7) which is salva- 
tion to the world, even though He is said to have been sent to preach deliver- 
ance to captives and recovery of sight to the blind (u) He is the more glorified for 
having endured the abasement of the Economy with flesh, and no one of those 
who think aright (Ὁ) will (I suppose) find fault because He lowered Himself for our 
sakes in our conditions. Does he [Nestorius] not therefore by affirming that he 
who was seen [that is, Christ’s mere humanity], to whom alone he has allotted 
the thing of being sent, is some other Son and Christ than the Word who came 
out of God, show our Sacrament to be AN EATING OF A MAN’S FLESH, [so] UN- 
HOLILY BRINGING THE MINDS OF BELIEVERS TO WICKED NOTIONS(#)AND ENDEAV- 
ORING TO SUBJECT TO HUMAN REASONINGS THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE GRASPED 
BY UNQUESTIONING FAITH ALONE? FOR NO ONE SHOULD SAY THAT THE HOLY 
BODY oF CHRIST (1715 A COMMON [body] BECAUSE THE NATURE OF DIVINITYIS 
NOT EATEN (7). For it is necessary to know, as we said before, that it is the 
own body of the Word who quickeneth all things; and because it is the body 
of Life (z), it is also life-giving, for through it does He [the Word] infuse life into. 
our mortal bodies, and do away the might of death. And on equal wise, the 
Holy Spirit also of the Anointed One (a) gives us life. For, according to the 
utterance of the Saviour himself, it is the Spirit Who giveth life. (6) 

The traditional belief of the Alexandrian School on the Eucharist had 
always been against what St. Cyril terms Hating a Man (ἀνθρωποφαγία) ; see 
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Athanasius, as quoted in Treat’s Catholic 
Faith, under their names on pages 574 and 575, and in Finch’s Sketch of the 
Romish Controversy. The last mentioned Alexandrian especially, as the greac 
San ee eee —————————————————————E——E——eee 

(4); Philip; a1. 7. 

(zw). Luke iv., 17, 18; Isaiah 1xi., 1. 

(v). Ρ. E. Pusey’s Greek text here reads what, translated, is as follows: “Ὁ and no one w& 
those who are wont to think aright,” instead of *‘ and no one of those who think aright,” 

(w). Or, ‘dead notions.’’ The Latin translation on page 361 of Vol. VI ofthe Greek of 
Cyril favors the reading of the text above, for it is ‘‘ perditas cogitationes.’’ Ihave quoted (i . 
Latin of this place more fully in note Ζέ, page 267 above. See it there, Pusey’s edition. 

(x). That is ‘ofthe Anotnted One.”’ 

(y). Hereisa plain statement that Christ's body, which we eat in the Eucharist, is not, 
common body, as Cyril elsewhere also teaches as quoted in this work, for he shows plainly an i 
clearly that we are not guilty ofeating a man; (ἀνθρωποφαγία is the term used by him to bran j 
that disgusting heresy), but only in effect the symbols, which Cyril on Luke above calls *‘ /ea+4 
ened bread and wine,’? which become to us channels of grace if we receive them aright, fur 
they constitute a body not for the Substance of God the Word to be eaten by us, but for the 
grace of His Spirit and for the ‘‘enxergy’’ of His body, to use Cyril’s own words. 

And Cyril then adds the equally plain assertion that “‘¢he Nature of Divinity zs not eaten,” 
a remark true of course of the Divinity of God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy 
Ghost, but meant here more especially to teach that the Word is not eaten in the Eucharist. 
On that see pages 250-260 of this note above. 

(5). Thatis, of God the Word, John i., 1-5; John v., 26; John vi., 32, 33, 42, 48, 50, 51, 58, 62, 63.. 

(a). ‘Thatis, of Christ. 

(6). John vi 63. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 275 


is poured forth by Him, (637), as It is certainly [poured forth] out ofthe 


theologian of that School, and as the glorious defender of the Faith of Nicaea, 
was Cyril’s teacher. Cyril makes that clear in his Apzstle to John of Antioch, 
which was made of Ecumenical authority by the Fourth Council of the whole 
Church, held at Chalcedon in A. D. 451, for in it he writes to John, 


‘And let thy holiness be persuaded that we every where follow the opinions: 
of the holy Fathers, and especially those of our all-well-famed Father Athan- 
asius, and refuse to deviate at all in any thing from them, and let none of the 
others’’ [the bishops of John’s jurisdiction] ‘‘doubt’’ [this]. Ifin any point 
therefore Cyril may not seem to be as clear as usual, or if any passage of his 
seem not toutter a certain sound, we are greatly helped to explain it by some 
passage of his great teacher, whom he professed to follow “‘ every where.’’ Hap- 
pily, we have such a passage of that great Instructor of the whole Church, and 
not of Cyril only, which I here give. 


Athanasius, Cyril’s Master, in a passage given in Greek and English in 
George Finch’s Sketch of the Romtish Controversy (London, 1831), pages 196, 197, 
explains Christ’s /esh, inJohn vi., to mean, “heavenly nourishment and spiritual 
Jood given tothem from above. ‘For the words which I speak unto you, they 
are spirit and life.’”? Wedenies what his successor and pupil, St. Cyril, calls 
avipwropayia, that is, the eating of a Man’s flesh and the drinking of a Man’s 
blood, and expressly testifies for the spzrztwal sense of Christ’s words there and 
against the carnal, that is against the fleshly. 


See that place. And this, when we reach the bottom facts, was Cyril’s 
teaching. I quote this whole passage : 


“Ὶ saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning 
the eating of His body, and seeing many offended thereby, the Lord said, ‘Doth 
this offend you? Whattfye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was 
before? Itisthe Spirit That quickeneth [that is, That maketh alive], the flesh 
profiteth nothing : the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit and 
life [John vi., 61, 62, 63]. And there he spake both of the Spirit and the flesh 
regarding Himself; and He made a distinétion between His Spirit and that 
which relates to flesh; that they, not only believing in that which was visible to 
their eyes, but also in His Invisible Nature, might also learn that the things 
which Hesaid were NOT FLESHLY, but SPIRITUAL. For, for how many would 
His body have sufficed for food, that it might become nourishment for all the 
world also? But He mentioned the Son of Man’s ascension into the heavens, 
for the purpose of drawing them away from thé CORPOREAL Sense, and that then 
they might understand that the flesh he spoke of was HEAVENLY NOURISHMENT 
AND SPIRITUAL FOoD given to them FROM ABOVE by Him. Joy, saith he, the 
words which I have spoken unto you, they are spirit and life [John vi., 63]. 
As if He had said, This my body, (c) which is shown to you and is given for the 
world shall be given as food, so that that food shall be digested spIRITUALLY 


‘c). Literally, ‘‘[that is] equal to saying, 7hzs my body,’’ etc., as above. 


276 Act I. of Ephesus. 


God and Father also (638). And therefore the Spirit glorified Him, 


within each, and become to all a safeguard unto a resurrection of eternal life :” 
upon that passage of the Gospel, “ Whosoever shall say.’” Most of the above pas- 
sage is found in Greek and English on page 263 in George Stanley Faber’s 
Difficulties of Romanism, third edition, London, 1853, and on page 2000f Treat’s 
Catholic Faith. 


Above under F, I have shown that Cyril teaches, 1, that the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the Thanksgiving (Εὐχαριστίαλ; 
nor 2, received by the mouth there; nor 3, in us at any time: and that therefore, 
according to his teaching, adopted at Ephesus, there is nothing to worship in 
the Eucharist. 


Under G, I have shown that St. Cyril teaches that we do not eat human flesh 
and drink human blood in the Rite, and that to do so would be Cannibalism 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία). 

I turn now, H, to ¢he difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius as to the 
worship of the Eucharist. As has been shown above, both of them denied any 
real presence ofthe actual Swhstance of Christ’s Divinity on the Holy Table, any 
eating of It in the Rite, and any existence of It there. 


We have seen also that Cyril denies that the separate humanity of Christ, 
separate that is from the Swdstance of His Divinity, can be worshipped, and that 
in his writings, as is shown in note 183 in this volume, page 79 and after, he 
brands that error as Nestorian worship of a Man, that is as creature-worship, 
and that therefore, even if he had believed Christ’s humanity to be really 
present on the Holy Table, he must have condemned its worship. Indeed, pas- 
sages of Cyril, as forinstance his Anathema VIII., approved by the Third Council 
ofthe whole Church, condemn in the strongest terms any co-worship of the 
Man put on by the Word, with God the Word; and others of them, seem, like 
utterances of St. Athanasius, to show that they both made every act of religious 
service prerogative to God alone, and that they so understood Matt.. iv, το, and 
hence worshipped in the Son only his Divinity. But on this last point I hope to 
treat more fully in my Dissertation on that theme, and hence pass it by without 
further remark here. It is therefore clear that St. Cyril’s own utterances quoted 
in note 183 above, page 79 and after (compare note 330, page 162, and notes 531, 
582 and 583, pages 225 and 226), prove that he deemed all religious bowing to 
be prerogative to Divinity alone, that he regarded all worship of Christ’s alleged 
humanity in the Eucharist as maintained by the Nestorians, then its only main- 
tainers, as Wan-Worship, that is, Creature-Worship and Jdolatry, and that he 
must therefore have held, in accordance with I Cor,. vi, 9, 10; Galat., v., 19, 20, 21 ; 
and Rev. xxi., 8, that no man guilty of it and dying impenitent in that sin can be 
saved. For those texts proclaim that as the end of theidolater. For Cyril was 
no man to explain away the plain threatenings of Almighty God. 

We come more fully in conclusion to show exactly what the Nestorian error 
of Host Worship was. 


Nestorius himself in the eighteenth of the heretical Passages quoted from 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 277 


by working through the hands of the holy Apostles the miracles 


him in Act 1 of Ephesus implies that he did not believe that the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity is eaten in the Eucharist, but only His Humanity. See it on 
pages 251 and 252 in this note. 


He does not there speak, however, definitely of the worship of that Human- 
ity there. But as St. Cyril shows in his quotations from him, in notes 183 and 
582 above, Nestorius worshipped relatively Christ's separate Humanity else- 
where, and so, I presume, did in the Lord’s Supper. We might be able to find 
a statement to that effect if all his writings had reached us. 


In the lack of anything further from him on this particular, let us turn to 
his greatest champion, the most prominent scholar of his heretical party, Theo- 
doret, Bishop of Cyrus, the bitter foe of the Third Ecumenical Synod, of Ortho- 
doxy, and of St. Cyril, its great and able exponent. 

Two facts are clear from the following extracts; 

1. That Theodoret, like his master and leader, Nestorius, denied any real 
presence of the Substance of God the Word’s Divinity on the Holy Table, and 
Its being eaten in the rite. 

2. Hedid believe that the consecrated elements ‘‘vemain in their former 
SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance,”’ as he expressly testifies, but that they 
have become in his sense the body and blood of Christ, separate of course from 
the Swbstance of Christ’s Divinity, for, as has been shown above, both Cyril and 
Nestorius agreed that His Divinity is not eaten in the Rite. 

And 3. Theodoret held that the Symbols, as being in his sense the body and 
blood of Christ, are to be worshipped by bowing. That worship of the conse- 
crated and still remaining bread and wine was in strict accordance with the 
principle of the relative worship of Christ’s humanity advocated by Nestorius 
and refuted by St. Cyril. See notes 183 and 582 above, where their language on 
that theme may be found. 

I will quote passages of Theodoret which prove that he held that we do not 
take the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, but Christ’s body and blood ; and 
that they were worshipped by his Nestorian party, for in his day, Syria, his 
birthplace and home, had become thoroughly corrupt. They are all from one 
work, his ‘‘ Hrantstes or Polymorphus,’’ that is, his ‘“‘ Beggaror Multiform,”’ so 
named with reference to the Apollinarian and Eutychian One-Natureism of his 
time. It consists of Three Dialogues, between Hyvamnistes,that is, the Beggar, 
who begs the materials of One-Nature heresy from old and present heresies, 
and Orthodoxus, that is, the Orthodox man, by which appellation the Nestorian 
Theodoret egotistically and wrongly means himself, and his heresy. Of course 
we shall find each of the speakers in some things agreeing with Orthodoxy, and 
in others with his own particular heresy ; and so we shall find Theodoret, like 
his master, Nestorius, holding that we do not eat God the Word’s Divinity in 
the Eucharist, but nevertheless asserting the existence there, by a kind of con- 
substantiation, of ‘‘ the body of Christ and the blood of Christ,’ with the sub- 


278 Act I. of Ephésus. 


after the ascension of our Lord Jesus the Anointed into the heaven. 


stance of bread and wine. But it is not Pusey’s and Keble’s Consub- 
stantiation, because there is no Divinity of Christ there. For Theodoret 
denies that expressly, below. And we shall find him following out the Nestor- 
ian principle of worshipping creatures, that is, of worshipping what alone he 
deemed to be in the Rite after consecration, that is, ‘‘the symbols,’? as he 
expressly calls them, which he tells us still ‘‘vemain in their former substance 
and shape and appearance,” but “are bowed to,” that is, ‘‘ worshipped,” as 
being deemed to be those very things which they have become, that is ‘‘ the 
body of Christ and the blood of Christ,’’ as Theodoret explains just before. 

The work, as has been just said, is in Three Dialogues, whose contents are 
largely indicated by their titles. The first is entitled, ΓΑτρεπτος, the Unchangeable, 
that is, that Christ’s Humanity can not be transubstantiated into Divinity, nor 
His Divinity into Humanity, but that the two Natures remain unchanged after 
their Union. The second is termed ᾿Ασύγχυτος, Without Mixture, that is, that. 
the two Natures are not mixed together. The third is termed ᾿Απαθῆς, that is, 
the Von-Suffering, that is, that God the Word, is not liable to suffering. So 
far, that is, on those three last points, the Nestorian and the Orthodox would 
agree with him against the One-Natureite. 

I quote the following passages, some of them in my own translation, some 
of them mainiy as in the English version of the heresiarch E. B. Pusey, in his 
Doéttrine of the Real Presence, pages 674, 675, or mainly as in Harrison’s rendering 
on pages 215, 216, and 217, Vol. II, of his Answer to Dr. Pusey’s Challenge 
respecting the Doctrine of the Real Presence. Uarrison’s extracts from Theo- 
doret as he informs us just before page 1 of Vol. II. of his work, are made from 
Theodoreti Opera, ed. Schulz., Halae, 1769-1774; 5 vols., δυο. Pusey gives only a 
partofthem. Harrison gives themin full. In the discussion below quoted we 
see evidences of the care which still existed to guard any full knowledge of the 
Christian Mysteries, that is Sacraments, that is Sacred Rites, from the Heathen 
and Jews and others who might abuse it. 


The following quotation is from Vol. IV of Schulze’s edition. 

THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS, the Nestorian : 

PASSAGE I, from his Dialogue 1, Without Change; 

‘“‘ORTHODOX. Since it is agreed that the Lord’s body was called, by the 
Patriarch, both ‘a robe,’ and ‘a wrap’ (a), and we have come to the argument 
about the Mysteries of God, tell me, by the Truth, whereof thinkest thou the 
all-holy food is doth a symbol and a type 3 OF THE Divinity of the Lord Christ, 
or of His body and His blood ? 

ERANISTES. Plainly of those things whose names they have received. 

ORTHODOX. Dost thou mean the body and the blood ? 


ERANISTES. I do. 


(a). Gen, xlix., 11, Sept. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius, PA) 


For it was believed that He Himself is God by Nature, operating 


—_— — 


ORTHODOX. Thou hast spoken asa lover of truth. For the Lord, when He 
took the symbol, did not say, ‘ 7115 15 my DIVINITY,’ but ‘ 7.115 zs my body’ (6). 
And again, ‘ Zhis 15 my blood’ (c). Andin another place, [He said] ‘ And the 
bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the 
world’ (a). 

ERANISTES. These things are true, for they are utterances of God. 


ORTHODOX. If then they are true, the Lord certainly had a body;”’ 
Schulze’s 7heodoret, tomeIV., pages 26, 27: and Col. 56, in tome 83 of Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca. 

Here Theodoret, calling himself Orthodox, implies that Christ did 
not make the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper symbols of His Divinity, but of 
His body and blood only, separate from His Divinity, according to the Nestorian © 
heresy. His argument indeed in this and the following passages is that the 
symbols of bread and wine in the Eucharist do not represent Christ’s Divinity 
at all nor contain It, but represent and are only His body and blood ; that is, 
they represent and contain those farts of His humanity ; and that hence the 
Apollinarian contention that He hasno humanity at all is wrong. I quotea 
part of the Greek of the above: ὈΡΘ-Φιλαλήθως εἴρηκας. Kal yap ὁ Κύριος τὸ 
σύμβολον λαβὼν, οὐκ εἶπε" Τοῦτό ἔστιν ἡ θεότης μου" ἀλλὰ, Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου" καὶ 
πάλιν" Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μον" καὶ ἑτέρωθι, Ὁ δὲ ἄρτος ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, ἡ σάρξ μοῦ ἐστιν, ἦν ἐγὼ 
δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς. ἜΡΑΝ. ᾿Αληθῆ ταῦτα, θεῖα γάρ ἐστι λόγια 

PASSAGE 2 of THEODORET, BISHOP OF CyRUS, the Nestorian : from his 
Dialogue 11, Without Mixture, tome IV of Schulze’s Theodoret, pages 125-127; 
col. 165, 168, tome 83 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 

‘ERANISTES. It is necessary to remove every stone, according to the proverb, 
so as to find out the truth, especially when the question is concerning dodtrines 
of God. 

ORTHODOX. Tell me, therefore, as to the mystical symbols offered to God 
by the priests, of what things are they symbols? 


ERANISTES. Of the Lord’s body and blood. 

ORTHODOX. Of that which is truly a body, or not ? 

ERANISTES. Of that which is truly. 

ORTHODOX. Very right. For there must be an archetype (6) of an image, 
for painters imitate nature, and draw the images of visible things, 

ERANISTES True. 


OrtTHODOX. If, then, the Mysteries of God are antitypes of the true body, 
then the Lord’s body is a body still, Not CHANGED INTO THE NATURE OF THE 


(6). Matt. xxvi., 26. 

(c). Matt. xxvi., 28. 

(d). John vi., 51. 

(e). Thatis ‘an original.” 


280 Act I. of Ephesus. 


through His own Spirit; and therefore. He said, He shall receive - 


Divinity, (7) but is filled with the divine glory” (’0p6. Ei τοίνυν τοῦ ὄντως 
σώματος ἀντίτυπα ἐστι τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια, σῶμα ἄρα ἐστὶ καὶ νῦν τοῦ Δεσπότου τὸ σῶμα, οὐκ 
εἰς θεότητος φύσιν μεταβληθὲν,͵ ἀλλὰ θείας δόξης ἀναπλησθέν.) Ἶ 

ERANISTES. Thou hast seasonably bronght in the matter of the Mysteries 
of God; for I will thence show to thee the change of the Lord’s body into another 


Nature. 


Answer therefore my questions. 


OrTHODOX. I will. 

ERANISTES. What callest thou the offered gift, before the sacerdotal invo- 
cation ἢ 

ORTHODOX. I must not speak distinctly ; for likely some of the uninitiated 
are present. 

ERANISTES. Let thy answer, then, be enigmatical. 

ORTHODOX. The food that is made from such and such grains [or ‘‘seeds’’]. 

ERANISTES. But how dost thou name the other symbol ? 

ORTHODOX. ‘That also is a common name, denoting a kind of drink. 

ERANISTES. But after the consecration what dost thou call those things? 

ORTHODOX. Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. 

ERANISTES. And dost thou believe that thou partakest of Christ’s body and 
blood? ; 

ORTHODOX. I do so believe. 

ERANISTES. As therefore the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are 


one duad of things [that is, mere leavened bread and wine] before the sacer- 
dotal invocation, but AFTER the invocation are changed and become another 
duad of things [that is, Christ’s body and blood], so the Lord’s body after He 
took it was changed into the Divine Substance. 


ORTHODOX. Thou art caught in the nets which thou hast woven. For the 
mystic symbols DO NOT PASS OUT OF THEIR OWN NATURE AFTER THE CONSECRA- 
TION. FoR THEY REMAIN IN THEIR FORMER SUBSTANCE AND SHAPE AND AP- 
PEARANCE; and they are visible and are touchable and such as they were before. 
But they are thought of as those things which they have become, and are be- 
lieved [to be] ; and THEY ARE BOWED To as being those things which they are 
believed [to be]. Compare therefore the image with the archetype, and thou 
wilt see the likeness. For it is necessary that the type should be like the reality. 
For that body has its former appearance and shape and circumference, and in a 
word, THE SUBSTANCE of the body. For it became immortal after the resurrec- 
tion, and incorruptible, and was deemed worthy of the seat at the right hand [of 
Be A ed EG ἩΥΥΊΤΝ πο γδητ εν Οὐ λτυν ον ΘΝ ΞΟ ΞΕΙΡΕΊΞΕΝΕ ἈΡΒΈΘΙ ΣΝ ο΄ 


(f). Here we see that Theodoret refers to the Apollinarian error that after the union of 
the Two Natures of Christ, the human was changed into the Divine, so that only one Nature 
remained, and that the Divinity of the Word. That, of course, involves the blasphemous 
assertion that a creature can become changed into God’s Divine Substance ; an absurdity which 
is plain to all. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 281 


of mine, and Shall show it unto you (639). And we by no means say 


the Father] and 15 WORSHIPPED BY ALL, THE CREATION as being entitled — body 
of the Lord of Nature (g). 

ERANISTES. But the mystical symbol changes its former name, for it is no 
longer named what it was called before, but is termed Jody (Δ). So then the 
reality must be called ‘ God,’ but not ‘ dody’ (2). 

ORTHODOX. Thou seemest to me to be ignorant. For it [the consecrated 
symbol of bread] is called not only ‘dody’ but also dread of life (7). So the 
Lord Himself called it (2). But we also name that very body God’s body, anda 
life-giving body, and the Master’s body, and the Lorda’s body, teaching that it is 
not a common body of some man, but is [a body] of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who 
is God and Man. For /esus Christ [is] the same, yesterday, and to-day, and for- 
every?’ (ἢ 

I here append the Greek of the most important part of the above passage as I 


(g). Here we have that Nestorian Man-Worship which is condemned in St. Cyril’s shorter 
Epistle above, pages 79 to 85; in his longer Epistle above, pages 215 to 224, andits Anathema 
VIII.; and in the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and in its Anathema Ix. 

(λ). Matt. xxvi., 26. 

(2). Ibid. 

(7).. John vi., 48, 51, 53, 54, 55 56, 57, 58, 63. Cyril understood “dread of life’ in John vi., 
48, etc., of God the Word as the Quickener in the Eucharist by his life-giving Spirit, by Which 
He sends into the things whtch lie before us, the leavened bread and wine, the energy of His holy 
body, which is at the Father’s right hand only so far as its substance is concerned, through 
which the Spirit energized when it was on earth and made its touch to heal the sick, etc. 
Theodoret, like Nestorius his Master, understood the eating and drinking referred to, to be of 
the humanity alone, or perhaps we may say more exactly, of two parts of His humanity alone, 
that is, of His body and blood, not of His human mind nor of His human soul. Compare Nes- 
torius’ condemned language on pages 251, 252 above, note, with which Theodoret seems to 
agree in every respect. It will be noticed that while Nestorius held that the ‘‘me’’ in the ex- 
pression of Christ in John vi., 57, ‘As the living Father hath sent me,’’ means his “‘humanity,” 
nevertheless he thought that another utterance of His, namely, ‘‘ He that eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my bloodabidethin meand [Tin him,” ‘ts satd regarding the flesh.’” Itis not clear. there- 
fore, that he held to the manducation of Christ’s eztzve humanity in the rite. His language, liter- 
ally taken, would not necessarily imply that he held to the eating of any other part of the 
humanity than the flesh, or to the drinking of anything more than the mere blood. Indeed, 
it is difficult tosee how any one can literally eat Christ’s human soul and his human mind; 
but we can readily see how, in accordance with St. Cyril of Alexandria’s doctrine adopted by 
the Third Ecumenical Council, God the Word can send the energizing power of His Holy 
Spirit zxlo the things which lie before us, that is the leavened bread and the wine, and so make 
them vehicles of his quickening and saving grace. All cannibal views of the Sacrament end 
in disgusting absurdities ; whereas the sound view of Cyril and the Church Universal is per- 
fectly free from every such folly. 

I would add that Nestorius and the Nestorians worshipped, relatively, the whole of Christ’s 
humanity at the right hand of the Father, relatively, that is, to God the Word. Seeon that 
worship of Christ’s extzve humanity a notea little below. That, ofcourse,is the old heathen plea 
of relative worship and is part of a Nestorian Creed which is condemned by this Third Council 

in its Act VI. The errorofthe relative worship of Christ’s humanity is condemned again by 
the Fifth Ecumenical Synod in its Anathema XII. as a Nestorian Heresy, 

(k). Ibid. 

(Z). Heb. xiii., 8. 


282 Ad 2, of Eplcsus. 


that the Spirit is wise and powerful By PARTAKING, so to speak, 


find it ina note on page 273 of the 7hird Edition of the Difficulties of Romanism 
by an able advocate of the worship of God alone (Matt. iv., 10), Rev. George 
Stanley Faber, who deserves well of the Universal Church, East and West, for 
acting as God’s champion against the idolatrizers, Newman, Keble, Pusey, 
Manning and Trevern. 

ΟΡΘΟΔ. 'Ἑάλως αἷς ὕφηνες ἄρκυσιν. Οὐδὲ yap, μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν, τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα 
τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ 
εἴδους" καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ ἁπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν" νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο" καὶ πιστεύεται, 
καὶ προσκυνεῖται, ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. ἸΠαράθες τοίνυν τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ τὴν εἰκόνα, 
καὶ ὄψει τὸν ὁμοιότητα. Χρὴ γὰρ ἐοικέναι TH ἀληθείᾳ τὸν τύπον. Theodor. Dial. 11. 
Oper. vol. iv. p. 84, 85. Paris. 1642. 

PASSAGE 3 OF ‘THEODORETOF CyRuS; from his Dialogue 1, Unchange- 
able, col. 56 of tome 83 of Migne’s FPatrologia Graeca. 

Speaking on the Eucharist there, he teaches against transubstantiation as 
follows : 

“ He [Christ] honored the visible symbols with the appellation he body and 
blood, NOT CHANGING THEIR NATURE BUT ADDING THEIR GRACE TO THEIR 
NATURE,’’ (Greek, οὗτος τὰ ὁρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος προσηγορίᾳ 
τετίμηκεν, OV τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῇ φύσει προστεθεικώς.) 

PASSAGE 4 OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF CvRus; from his Dialogue 777., which 
is entitled Unsuffering, tome IV. of Schulze’s edition of his Works, pages 190, 
ΤΟΙ: 

“ ἘΒΑΝΙΘΤΕΘ. <A body then hath obtained salvation for us. 

ORTHODOX. The body of no mere man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Sole-Born Son of God. But, if this appear to thee small and worthless, how dost 
thou suppose that ITs TYPE IS WORSHIPPABLE and saving? But since the TYPE 
OF ITIS TO BE BOWED ἸῸ [προσκυνητός, that is, ““Ζ5 an object of worship’’] and 
is venerable, how can the archetype itself (7) be despicable and mean ?”’ 

Here the Nestorian Theodoret certainly teaches the worship by bowing, the 
most common act of worship, of the TYPE as a TYPE, that is of the bread and 
wine of the Eucharist as untransubstantiated bread and wine still, even after 
consecration, as he expressly teaches in Passage 2 above. Seeit. 

What without any break follows, seems to show how the Apollinarians 
mixed the Natures of Christ, and how the Nestorians, like Theodoret, did not. 
I quote and translate : 

‘“ERANISTES. I do not deem the body a cheap thing, but I can not endure 
to distinguish it from the Divinity [or ‘‘ to separate it from the Divinity.’ ] 

ORTHODOX. Nor, good friend, do we separate the union, but recognize the 
peculiarities of [each of] the Natures.’’ 

I quote the Greek of this last part as I find it in column 237 of tome 83 of 


(m). Thatis, Christ’s body which was offered on Calvary. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 283 


[those qualities from another]; for It is all perfect and lacks no good 


Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Ὄρθ. Οὐκ ἀνθρώπου σῶμα ψιλοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ μονογενοὺς Ὑἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτό σοι νομίζεται μικρόν τε καὶ εὐτελὲς, 
TOC τὸν τούτου γε τύπον σεπτὸν ἡγῇ καὶ σωτήριον ; Οὐ δὲ ὁ τύπος προσκυνητὸς καὶ σεβάσμιος, 
TOC αὐτὸ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον εὐκαταφρόνητον καὶ σμικρόν: 

Ἔραν. Οὐκ εὐτελὲς ἡγοῦμαι τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ διαιρεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς ϑεότητος οὐκ ἀνέχομαι. 

Ὀρθ. Οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς, ὦ ἀγαθὲ, διαιροῦμεν τὴν ἔνωσιν, ἀλλὰ θεωροῦμεν τὰ τῶν φύσεων ἴδια. 

PASSAGE 5 of THEODORET, BISHoP OF Cyrus; from his Dialogue 772., en- 
‘titled Unsuffering, Volume IV. of Schulze’s edition of his Works, pages 219-221; 
‘col. 269, 272, of tome 83 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca; 

“ORTHODOX. Dost thou thoroughly remember those Gospel oracles in 
which the Lord made a comparison between the manna and the true or real food? 

ERANISTES. I doremember [it]. 

ORTHODOX. In that place, when He had discoursed in many words con- 
cerning the dread of life (22), he added these words also: ‘ The bread which 7 
giveis my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world’ (0). And in these 
words is seen both the munificence of the Divinity and the gift of the flesh. 

ERANISTES. To solve that question one testimony does not suffice. 

ORTHODOX. * * * Thou knowest that place of the Gospel history in 
which, eating the Passover with His disciples. He showed the meaning of 
the typical lamb, and taught what the body of that shadow is? 

ERANISTES. I know that history. 

OrTHODOX. Therefore call again tomemory what the Lord took and broke 
and by what name he called that which He took. 

ERANISTES. On account of those who are uninitiated, I shall speak more 
mystically. When He had taken and had broken, and had distributed to the dis- 
ciples, He said, ‘ This is my body which ts given for you’ ( p); or ‘ broken” (q), ac- 
cording to the Apostle; and again, "7.15 15 my blood of the New Testament, 
which 1s shed for many’ (7). 

ORTHODOX. Therefore He did not mention His DIVINITY when He showed 
the type of His suffering? (Greek, ‘Opt. Οὐ τοίνυν ϑεότητος ἐμνημόνευσε, Tov πάθους 
τὸν τύπον ἐπιδεικνύς.) 

ERANISTES. Certainly not, (Greek, Οὐ δῆτα). 

ORTHODOX. But He did indeed mention His body and blood? (Greek, ᾿Αλλὰ 
σώματός γε Kai αἵματος), 

ERANISTES. ‘True, (Greek, ’AA7¥éc). 

ORTHODOX. Was a body therefore nailed to the cross ? 


(n). Tohn vi., 48. Compare verses 33 and 51 to 64. 
(0). John vi., 51. 

{2). Luke xxii., rg. 

(as. EB Cor; xi:, 24. 

(v7). Matt. xxvi., 28. 


284 Act Ll. of Ephesus. 


thing. And since It is the Spirit of the power and the wisdom of the 


ERANISTES. It so appears ”’ 

Then Theodoret goes on to argue further from Scripture against his Apol- 
linarian opponent that it was Christ’s body which suffered, rose again and 
appeared to his Apostles. 

Here again we hear the echo of Nestorius’ teaching in the Eighteenth ofthe 
Extracts from him in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council, that we do not 
eat Divinity in the Eucharist, but Christ’s body and blood. So far as not eating 
Divinity in the rite is concerned, Cyril, as we see above, agrees with him, but 
denounces Nestorius’ error of eating real flesh and blood as cannibalism. See 
clearly on those points page 250 and after in this note. 


PASSAGE 6 OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF Cyrus; from his Epzstle 730 (ad 
Timoth.), page 1218, tome IV. of Schulze’s Theodoret. 


“80 an angel of the Lord called the body Lord, since it was the body of the 
Lord of the universe. But the Lord Himself promised to give, NoT HIS INVIS- 
IBLE NATURE (5), but His body for the life of the world. For He saith, ‘ Zhe 
bread which Iwill give ismy flesh, which I will give for the life of the world’ (ἢ). 
And, when delivering the Mysteries of God, He took the symbol aud said: 
‘This is my body which is given for you (uw); or ‘broken’ (v), according to the 
Apostle. And NO WHERE IN DISCOURSING OF HIS SUFFERING, DID HE MEN- 
TION HIS UNSUFFERING DIVINITY.”’ 

This plainly teaches the doétrine of Cyril as well as of Nestorius, that the 
Substance of Christ’s Divinity is not in the Eucharist. But it denies the doctrine 
of St. Cyril’s Anathema XII. below, approved by the Third Council. 

I quote the most important part of the Greek of the above. Καὶ αὐτὸς dé 
ὁ Κύριος, ov τὴν ἀόρατον Φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα δώσειν ὑπέσχετο ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς" 
* * Χ Kal οὐδαμοῦ περὶ πάϑους διαλεχϑεὶς τῆς ἀπαϑοῦς ἐμνήσϑη ϑεότητος. 

Τὸ βιπὶ up the teaching in the foregoing Passages of Theodoret on the 
Thanksgiving, that is the Eucharist. 

A, as to whether the Substance of Christ’s Divinity is in the rite. 


In this note above on pages 251, 252, we have seen that Nestorius denies the 
real presence of the Substance of God the Word’s Divinity in the rite. On pages 
252-260, we see that Cyril, in no less than four places, plainly teaches that God 
the Word can not be eaten, and that in another passage he even goes further 
and denies that the Substance of the Divinity of God the Word lies on the Holy 
Tables at all in the Eucharist. 


Theodoret also agrees with them in denying any real presence of the Sub- 
stance of the Divinity of Christ in the rite. See in proof passages I, 2, 5 and 6, 
in all of which that denial is implied, and is made a part of Theodoret’s argu- 
ment. 

(s). That is, not His Divinity. 
(ἢ: John vi., 51. 

(uw). Luke xxii., 19. 

(v). I Cor., xi., 24: 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 285. 


Father, that is of the Son, It is, in very truth, Wisdom and Power, 
(640). 


B, As to cannibalism in the Thanksgiving. 

2. Theodoret, like Nestorius on page 251, 252 above, held that Christ’s 
flesh is eaten and His blood is drunk in the Lord’s Supper ; thatis he held in it to 
what St. Cyril as above on pages 261-270 of this note calls cannibalism (avd po- 
ποφαγία). See in proof Passage 2, where we read that before consecration the 
gifts are called bvead and wine. Then comes the following as to what occurs 
after consecration: 

‘‘RRANISTES. But after the consecration what dost thou call those things ? 

ORTHODOX. Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. 

ERANISTES. And dost thou believe that thou partakest of Christ’s body 
and blood? 

ORTHODOX. I do so believe.’’ 

That is definite Nestorian cannibalism; that is avfpwrogayia, as St. Cyril 


terms it. 
This same sense is made clearer by Theodoret’s statement in Passage 2 above 


that after consecration the bread and wine ‘‘ave thought of as those things 
which they have become, and are believed to be,’ that is the body and blood of 
Christ, not in exergy as Cyril teaches, but really and actually according to 
Theodoret’s Nestorian idea. 

C, As to Creature-Worship in the Lord’s Supper. 

3. Theodoret plainly teaches the error, as we see under the last head, head 
B, that the real flesh and the real blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist 
and are there separate from His Divinity, and so believing and so holding he 
worshipped that separate humanity, or, perhaps, to be more exact, those separate 
parts only of Christ’s humanity there, which is one form of the very error and 
sin condemned by Cyril as ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is, MAN-WoRSHIP there. See 
passages 2 and 4 of Theodoret above. In passage 2, Theodoret, it will be noticed, 
first testifies that he worships real flesh and blood in the Eucharist, as well as 
the unchanged bread and wine which he held to be with them in the rite, and that 
then he speaks of the body as being worshipped in heaven, separate from the 
Eucharist. Its worship above he speaks of as follows: 

“For that body has its former appearance and shape and circumference, 
and, in a word, the substance of the body. For it became immortal after the 
resurrection and incorruptible, and was deemed worthy of the seat at the right 
hand [of the Father], avd Is WORSHIPPED BY ALL, THE CREATION AS BEING EN- 
TITLED THE BODY OF THE LORD OF NATURE.”’ 

Theodoret does not here mention the worship of Christ’s evtive humanity, 
but as he was a Nestorian, and as all the Nestorian party worshipped Christ’s 
entire humanity at the right hand of the Father, he probably did also. 

I come now, in concluding this long note 606, long necessarily because the 
action of the Third Ecumenical Council is so wofully unknown even to the 


286 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


And forasmuch as the holy Virgin brought forth ina fleshly way 


mass of scholars, to a matter which should be added, that is for the sake of fuller 
information ¢o Contrast the Orthodox Doéttrine of the Eucharist as set forth by 
St. Cyril of Alexandria, and in effect approved by the Universal Church, East 
and West, in the Third Ecumenical Council, with divers heretical local views on 
the Lord’s Supper. 

The Orthodox doctrine may be summed up under four heads, as follows: 


I. The Substance of the Son’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the 
Rite, is not eaten there or elsewhere, and is never in us at any time, and never 
was in any human being except the Virgin Mary, and in her during the period 
of gestation only. See, in proof, head F, pages 250-260 in this note, above. 


2. The real substance of Christ’s human flesh and of His human blood born 
of Maty are not present in the Eucharist, and are not eaten in the Sacrament, 
and if such a thing were done, it would be what St. Cyril expressly calls 
avipwrogayia, that is cannibalism, and if we really ate Christ’s human flesh, ‘‘¢he 
deed were eating aman, and wholly unprofitable the partaking,’ as he well puts 
it; see page 262, above, note, and pages 260-276 of this note. 

3. The Substance of Christ’s Divinity being absent from the Eucharist, 
according to the Doctrine of St. Cyril in both his Epistles approved by the Uni- 
versal Church at Ephesus, can not be worshipped there. 


And, according to their teaching, even were the substance of the Humanity 
of Christ separate from His Divinity really present in the Sacrament, it would 
be the Nestorian error, condemned by St. Cyril and the Third World-Council, 
of Man-Worship to worship it there or elsewhere. Seein proof head H, pages 
276-285 of this note above. 


4. Inthe Thanksgiving, that is the Eucharist, we velatively partake of 
God the Word by receiving in the rite exactly what we niost need, that is His 
sanctifying Spirit (page 264 of this note), Which is related to Him as being His 
own Spirit; and though God wills that there shall be seen no ‘‘/lesh and blood lying 
before us on the Holy Tables of the Churches,’? Hedoes what is better for us, 
for, as Heshows on page 264 in this note, ‘‘ condescending to our weaknesses, He 
sends the power of life into the things which lie before us, and changes them to 
the ENERGY of His own flesh, in order that we may have them for a life-giving 
partaking, and that the body of the Life [that is of God the Word, not of His 
humanity] say be found in us as a life-giving seed.”’ 

And ‘‘the things which lie before us,’’ he explains before to be ‘‘ leavened 
bread and wine.’’ Inasmuch as God the Word indwells them as vehicles of grace 
by His Spirit, they are therefore called the body and blood of the Word; for the 
Word may relatively indwell a body of bread by His Holy Spirit as He relatively 
indwells our bodies of flesh by the same Holy Spirit. And therefore, speaking of 
the Word, Cyril says, ‘‘ It was behooving Him therefore, to come into us dy the 
Floly Spirit, God befittingly, and, so to speak, to mingle Himself with our bodies 
by His holy flesh and His precious blood; which things we have also for a life- 
giving blessing as in bread and wine.’’? See page 264 above, note. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 287 


God united, as respects His Substance, to flesh (641), for that very 


And Cyril again and again shows that there is a veal absence of Christ’s. 
human flesh and blood born of Mary from the Rite, and that what we receive is 
the jlesh and blood of God the Word, the ‘‘leavened bread and wine,” ‘the. 
things which lie before us.”’ 


Or, as he writes in his Hxplanation of his Chapter XTI., delivered at Ephe- 
SUS. 


‘‘We perform in the Churches the holy and life-giving and wxbloody sacrifice 
not believing what lies before us to be the body of one of those like us, and ofa 
common man, and so likewise we hold as to the precious blood, but receiving them 
rather as having become an own body and an own blood of THE WorRD who. 
guickeneth all things. For common flesh can not give life.’? But if Christ’s. 
human blood is there the sacrifice is not wzthout blood (ἀναίμακτος): and Cyril 
on pages 235, 236 above calls it as does all Christian antiquity, “the un- 
bloody service,’ in Greek, τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν; and if Christ’s humanity is. 
there, ‘‘the body of one of those like us’? ts there, for Paul again and again teaches 
that Christ became a man like us for our salvation (Heb. 11., 14-18, etc.) See 
page 268 of this note. 


Cyril, in Anathema XI., towards the end of the above Epistle, teaches the. 
same Eucharistic do¢trine that it is the Word’s flesh, that is, Christ’s grace in- 
fused into us in God the Word’s body of ‘‘leavened bread,’’ that we eat, 
and that that quickens us, not that we eat the mere flesh of the man born of 
Mary, for that would be to make Christ in John VI. to teach ‘‘ plain cannibal- 
ism ”’ (ἐναργὴς avOpwrogayia), and in that case, ‘‘ the deed were eating a Man, and 
wholly unprofitable the partaking, for I hear Christ Himself say, 7he flesh 
profiteth nothing, itis the Spirit that guickeneth, for, so far as pertains to its. 
own nature, the flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, for it is 
itself diseased with the corruption which belongs to its own nature,’’ (Cyril on 
page 262 of this note above.) 


Cyril says this of the Nestorian belief that they ate the real human flesh of 
Christ in the Eucharist and that they drank His real human blood there. And 
while he seems to speak strongly as to the corruptibility of Christ’s flesh, yet we 
must remember that Christ as Man was liable to sickness, to disease, to pain, 
and to death, and to that corruption which follows death; and that he actually 
suffered agony on the cross and died, though he was exempted by the Father. 
from corrupting, for He would not suffer His Holy One to see corruption (A&s 
ii., 27 and 31). And indeed Holy Writ makes much of his having been tempt- 
ed, that is tried, by suffering, to encourage us to go to him: ‘‘ Hor in that He 
Himself hath suffered being tempted, He 15 able to succor them that are tempted”’ 
(Heb. ii, 18). ‘‘Hor we have not an high priest which can not be touched with 
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet 
without sin,’ (Heb. iv., 15), etc. Cyril means here therefore that Christ’s mere 
human flesh, born of Mary, a mortal, was mortal, was liable to disease and to. 
death, and to corruption, and that, if it were possible for us to do the cannibal 
act of eating it, it would not spiritually profit us. 


288 Act I. of Ephésus. 


reason, we also assert that she was Bringer-Forth of God (642); not 


On page 263 of this note he calls the eating of it ‘‘a@ sonstrosily.”” 


On page 264, he teaches that we ‘‘have the Son in us by arelative partaking” 
only, not that he /zcarnates or Jnmans Himself in us by the Substance of His 
Divinity and by the substance of His Humanity. And just below he goes 
on to show how Christ comes into us, and teaches that God the Word 
does not enter us by the eternal Substance of His Divinity, but velatzvely only, 
that is, ‘dy the Holy Spirit,” which is related to Him as being His Spirit. 

Next he goes on to tell how it behooves Christ ‘‘ 40 come into us” relatively 
as regards His Humanity, ‘‘and, soto speak, to mingle Himself with our bodies 
by His Holy flesh and His precious blood, which things we have also for a life- 
giving Blessing as in leavened bread and wine.” 


But how are they ‘‘zz leavened bread and wine ?’’ If they are there, they 
are there of course to be eaten. And if we eat ‘‘ Mis holy flesh,” and drink 
“ His precious blood” “in” the ‘‘leavened bread and wine,’’ we are guilty of 
cannibalism, according to St. Cyril’s plain teaching above and below. He 
can not mean that therefore. Besides, that would be, in effect, the Nestorian 
Consubstantiation of the a¢tual substance of Christ’s flesh and blood, with the 
substances of ‘‘ leavened bread and wine,’ or with six things, that is, His flesh 
and blood, and human mind, and human soul, and the leavened bread, and the 
wine. But that is exa@tly what Cyril brands as false and as cannibalism, and 
opposes with might and main. But Cyril well explains himself, and that without 
any break, for at once he shows that God the Word is in us humanly, not by 
His flesh and blood born of Mary, but relatively only as he says above, that is, 
not by sending His flesh and blood born of Mary “‘zuto the things which lie 
before us,’ that is, the ‘‘leavened bread and wine,’ as he explains above, but 
“the power of life * * * and changes them [not into the substance, but] fo 
the energy of His own flesh, in order that we may have them for a life-giving 
partaking ;’’ that is, the leavened bread and wine, are now no longer mere signs, 
but to him who receives them aright, they are filled with ¢he power of life.” 
In that sense alone are they changed. 

But if we partook of Christ’s flesh born of Mary, that could not give life as 
Cyril shows above. He does not mean that, therefore, but the saving influences 
of the Spirit which energized that flesh, and energizes us by the vehicles of 
bread and wine. 

He adds, ‘‘and that the body of the life, [that is, of God the Word] say be 
found in us as a life-giving seed,” that is, that God the Word’s body of leavened 
bread and His blood of wine, may be mingled with our bodies, and may be found 
in us as a life-giving seed. I quote this explanation of Christ’s ve/atzve infusing 
Himself into us humanly. We have seen that His infusing Himself into us 
Divinely was by His Spirit. 

‘« For that we may not be stupified [with horror] by seeing flesh and blood 
lying before us on the Holy Tables of the Churches, God, condescending to our 
weaknesses, sends the power of life into the things which le before us and 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. . 289 


that the Nature of the Word had the beginning of Its existence from 


changes them to the energy of His own flesh, in order that we may have them 

for a life-giving partaking and that the body of the L1fe [that is, of God the 
Word,] may be found in us as a life-giving seed.” Cyril then goes on to show 
that he is contemplating spiritual effects in the Sacrament, not mere cannibal- 
ism, by bringing in what Christ says of analogous spiritual influences and bless- 
ings connected with the Rite of Baptism. 


He does not, of course, limit the workings of God’s Holy Spirit to these 
Rites, for all admit that It is given to us all daily, and that we cannot think one 
good thought, speak one good word, or do one good deed without It; nor can any 
heathen or Jew even, though he be out of the covenant of salvation. For what- 
soever of good there is in any man is from God. Glory be to Him. 


Nevertheless, we must well remember that Baptism and the Eucharist are 
necessary to full membership in the Church of the Saved, and to eternal life, 
and instruments of special blessings. (For the blessings of baptism see John iii., 
5; Mark xvi., 16; Acts ii., 38; and Acts xxii., 16; Tit. iii, 5; and I. Pet. 111., 21. 
For the blessings of the Lord’s Supper see John vi., 26-64.) 

To go on with Cyril’s remarks on the Nestorian Cannibalism in this note. 
On page 267 he calls it an ‘‘ u#holily bringing the minds of believers to notions 
of wickedness,” [that is, to cannibalism,] and a “ doing away unlearnedly the 
force of the Mystery,” that is Sacrament, [that is by changing its spiritual 
profiting to material flesh-eating and blood-drinking which profit not,] ‘‘and 
that for that very reason and with great justice has the Anathema been set 
forth.’ Cyrilrefers to his Anathema XI. in the Epistle above which was ap- 
proved by the Third Ecumenical Council. For the Nestorians’ doctrine of the 
Eucharist rested in their minds on the denial of the Incarnation, and on the 
consequent parting of the Two Natures. For they supposed that if they ad- 
mitted the Inman of the Substance of God the Word, they must admit the 
eating of both Natures in the Eucharist. And if they had deemed Cyril a 
Two-Natureite they would have deemed that he held to eating the Two Natures 
there; but as they supposed him to be a One-Natureite, they also supposed him, 
as Nestorius’ Passage 18 above shows, to be an eater, according to his belief, 
of the only Nature they supposed him to believe that Christ has, that is, the 
Divinity. 

Cyril, as we see, in reply tells them that we do not eat God the Word, and 
that what we receive in the Lord’s Supper is not the flesh and blood born of 
Mary, but the body of God the Word, that is the ‘‘leavened bread,” and the 
blood of God the Word, that is the ‘‘ wzme,’’ both of which are to us channels of 
His sanctifying grace by His Spirit and pledges of eternal life. 

On pages 268 and 269, Cyril shows that the design of the Sacrament was to 
confer not a rite of cannibalism, but spiritual blessings. 

On page 270, he speaks of the cannibal sense as arising from ‘‘a very great 
lack of learning,’ and censures the folly of those of Christ’s disciples, who were 
‘offended at His words in John vi., 53; because they understood them in the 


290 Act I, of Ephesus. 


flesh ; for He was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and the 


cannibal sense. Alas! how many of those called disciples in medizval and 
modern times have understood His words in the literal cannibal sense, because 
like them, to use Cyril’s words on page 270, this note, ‘‘ 7hey knew not the 
beauty of the Mystery, [that is Sacrament], and that most beautiful Economy 
devised for it.’? That is, they were not spiritual like Cyril (I. Cor. ii., 15), and 
therefore, like the carnal Jews and carnal disciples in John VI., they took Christ’s 
words there in the sense of the real presence of the substance of Christ’s flesh 
and blood, and of their oral manducation. For, if they were there, they could 
be taken and eaten by no other organ than the mouth. For that which is flesh 
is taken in a fleshly manner, whereas that which is really in the sacrament, in 
the vehicles of God the Word’s body of ‘‘ leavened bread’’ and His blood of 
‘wine,’ is the energy of the Sfz7zt which energized Christ’s body on earth 
(Cyril’s Anathema IX.), and which is taken spzrttually by us. For as Christ 
concludes His teaching on the Eucharist in that Chapter, ‘‘/¢ zs the Spirit that 
quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing’? (John vi., 63). 


Cyril’s language against the Cannibal, Nestorian, Transubstantiation and 
Consubstantiation sense is so strong that no man really holding any of those 
errors can in his heart really accept it, but begins at once to explain it away, 
or, what is more honest, to openly reject it. I give it in full: 


‘‘FROM THEIR VERY GREAT LACK OF LEARNING, [that is, Cyril means, 
because they did not understand the spiritual sense of his words], some of those 
who were being discipled under the Saviour Anointed were offended at His 
words. For because they heard Him saying, Verily, Verily, 7 say unto you, 
unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man (a) and drink Fis blood, ye have no 


(a). Ishould add that the Nestorians understood in the above passage of Cyril, the words. 
Son of Man, quoted from John vi., 53, to mean Christ’s human nature only, and that in order 
to prove their two positions on the Eucharist, namely, 

I. That the Substance of Christ’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the Eucharist, and 
is not eaten in the Rite; with which position, as We see above on pages 250-260, Cyril fully 
agreed; and, 

2. Thatin the Sacrament the substance of Christ’s flesh and the substance of His blood, 
both born of Mary, are both present, and that the first is actually eaten and the second act- 
ually drunk. 

For in his Christ zs One, Cyril represents the Nestorians as saying, 

‘*It has been said by Him [Christ], and that too very clearly, Verzly, verily, Isay unto you, 
except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life tn yourselves{ John 
vi.. 53]. We understand therefore, say they, that the honored body and the blood are not 
[those] of God the Word but of the Son of Man who has been conjoined to him’’(P. E. Pusey’s 
Greek of the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Vol, VII., part 1, pages 421, 422). 

But Cyrilin reply, though he does not there say much on the Lord’s Supper, nevertheless 
does say that mere flesh can not give life; but that it must come from God the Word. He 
shows above how it comes from the Word, that is by His Spirit, and by the leavened bread and 
wine filled by the Spirit with the exergy and power of that holy body which is at the Father’s.. 
right handonly. For that body born of Mary, as being a mere creature, is not the Infinite 
Source of sanctifying grace, never had any power to sanctify of itself, and has not now, but 
all sanctification comes, as Cyril elsewhere teaches, from the Father through the Son, that is,. 
through God the Word, dy the Holy Ghost. For let us well remember that it was the Holy- 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 291 


Word was with God, and He Himself ts the Maker of the Worlds (643), 


life in you [ John vi., 53], they supposed that they were called to some SAVAGE- 
NESS BEFITTING A WILD ANIMAL, AS THOUGH THEY WERE COMMANDED 
INHUMANLY TO EAT FLESH AND TO SUP UP BLOOD AND TO BE COMPELLED TO 
DO THINGS WHICH ARE HORRIBLE EVEN TO HEAR OF. FOR THEY KNEW NOT 
THE BEAUTY OF THE MYSTERY AND THAT MOST BEAUTIFUL ECONOMY DEVISED 
FOR IT.” 

And surely the literal sense of eating the substance of Christ’s human flesh 
and drinking the substance of His human blood, is what Cyril terms it, ‘‘savage- 
ness befitting a wild animal,” it is ‘“‘“inhumanly to eat flesh and to sup up 
blood, and * * * {to do things which are horrible even to hear of.” And if 
any have held that sense it was because, as St. Cyril here writes, ‘‘ 7hey knew not 
the beauty of the Mystery (that is, Sacrament] and that most beautiful Economy 
devised for it,’’ that is, its design is to strengthen us spiritually, not by eating 
human flesh and drinking human blood, but by the quickening and sanctifying 
influences of the Holy Ghost (John vi., 63), and to Ze// on on by the symbols of 
“leavened bread’’ and ‘‘wine’’ the Lord’s death till He come (I. Cor. xi., 26). 
This is the Spiritual sense, and because sfzrztual therefore the higher and God- 
glorifying sense. For the Spiritual is in its very nature higher than the merely 
carnal. And the carnal sense of Christ’s words is that of the Nestorian, the 
Transubstantiationist, and the Consubstantiationist. 


Of course those of any of the three last classes will at once cry out, ‘‘ We also 
hold to the influences of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper.’’ But that will 
not undo the fact that on their own showing they hold to what St. Cyril calls 


Ghost that came upon Mary at her conception to sanctify that holy human thing that was to be 
born of her (Luke i., 35), and that so became a fit tabernacle for the Substance of God the Word 
to dwell in, in her womb, and to come into this world in, out of her. And let us also well un- 
derstand that as God the Word, by that Spirit which is His (Rom. viii., 9, and I. Peteri., 11), 
sanctified the body and blood born of Mary which He wore, and kept His whole Humanity 
without spot (Heb. ix., 14), and quickened and raised it up by the same Spirit (Rom. viii., 11), so. 
He promises quickening and eternal life by the same Spirit sending into “the things which lie 
before us’’, ‘the leavened bread and wine,’’ the same spiritual force and power and energy 
which he ever infuses into that mere created body which is at the Father’s right hand only. 

Elsewhere Cyril teaches that the title Son of Man and every other title of Christ’s human- 
ity must be Economically Appropriated to God the Word who put on that Man in Mary’s womb 
(see his Anathemas IV., XI., and XII., and his Scholia on the Incarnation, Oxford translation, 
pages 188, 189, 202, 206, 199, 200, and his Christ zs One, page 317, id.; compare pages 186, 101. 
where Emmanuel is shown to be God the Word, with page 233, where He is called Son of Man, 
the very expression used by God the Word of Himselfin John vi., 53, just quoted, and page 
236 where the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation to God the Word ofthe names andsuffer- 
ings of His Humanity is distinctly set forth, as it is in the above Longer Epistle also on pages 
224-268 of this work, where on page 228 we shall find the expression Man applied to God the 
Word, and pages 238, 239, 240, where Cyril teaches that the flesh of Christ which we eat in the 
Eucharist is not a Man’s, but is a flesh of God the Word, by which he means what elsewhere, 
as we have seen, he definitely calls ‘‘ leavened bread.’’ Andon page 240 he teaches that the 
expression Son of Man used of ‘‘ the flesh of the Son of Man" in the Eucharist in John vi., 53, 
does not mean the flesh of a man like one of us, but of God the Word, and that the expression 
Son of Man there, by Economic Appropriation, means God the Word. 


292 Act I. of Ephesus. 


is coeternal with the Father and isthe Framer of the Universe; but, as 


Cannibalism, and prostitute the Sacred Rite to Idolatry to the damnation of their 
own souls by worshipping it. For Holy Writ teaches that no idolater shall 
inherit the kingdom of God; I. Cor. vi., 9, 10; Rev. xxi., 8. 

On pages 273-274 St. Cyril goes on to teach that the Nestorian interpretation 
ofJohn vi., makes ‘‘our sacrament to be an eating of a Man’s flesh [so] unholily 
bringing the minds of believers to wicked notions, and endeavoring to subject to 
Auman reasoning those things which are grasped by unquestioning faith alone 
[that is denying the spiritual sense and reducing the whole Rite, as the Nes- 
torians did, to a cannibal, material, feast on a mere common body, that is, a 
body of Christ without the Substance of His Divinity in it, as they maintained]- 
For no one should say that the holy body of Christ ts a common [body], because 
the Nature of Divinity is not eaten. [That Cyril and Nestorius agreed that 
“‘ the Nature of Divinity is not eaten”’ in the Eucharist is shown above in their 
own words on pages 250-260, and 273, 274 in this note]. 

Then Cyril proceeds to show that it is not the mere human body born of 
Mary that quickens us, but the body and blood of God the Word, which, as we 
see above, is the ‘leavened bread and wine’ changed not in swbstance but in 
spiritual efficacy by the Word’s sending into them the energy of His body which 
is at the right hand of the Father by His Spirit’s influences, not the eternal Sub- 
stance of His Spirit. I quote: 

ἐς For it is necessary to know, as we said before, that tt ts the own body of 
the Word who quickeneth all things; and because tt ἐς the body of Life [ that is, 
of God the Word who is called 2.175 in John xiv., 6; compare John i., 1-5, 14; 
John xi., 25; and I. John v., 20], z¢7zs also life-giving, for through τέ does He 
[the Word] infuse life into our mortal bodies, and do away the might of death. 
And on equal wise, the Holy Spirit also of the Anointed One gives us life 
[For the Word indwells us relatively by it; pages 258, 259 and 260, above]. for 
according to the utterance of the Saviour Himself, “It IS THE SPIRIT THAT 
GIVETH LIFE’? [John vi., 63]. For the Word is in us in the Lord’s Supper in 
two ways, ‘‘ Divinely by the Holy Spirit, and humanly besides by His holy flesh 
and His precious blood,” [pages 261 and 264], ‘‘ which things we have also for a 
life-giving blessing as in leavened bread and wine” [page 264], which are 
changed not as to their substance but as to their efficacy, because God the Word 

“‘sends into’’ them, ‘‘the things which lie before us’’ [page 264], not the sub- 
stances of His natural flesh and blood, but ‘‘ the power oflife, * * * and 
changes them,’ the ‘‘leavened bread and wine,’’ not into the substance of that 
flesh and blood which He took of Mary, but ‘‘¢o the energy of His own flesh,”’ 
not that we may cannibalize by feeding on raw flesh and drinking actual blood 
which we are commanded to abstain from by Acts xv., 29, but ‘‘ 2 order that 
we may have them,’ that is, ‘the leavened bread and wine,’’ vehicles now of 
the exergy of Christ’s own body, which was born of Mary and energized by the 
Holy Ghost, ‘‘ for a life-giving partaking and that the body of the Life [that is, 
of God the Word], may be found in us as a life-giving seed.’’? See above, pages 
261-267, note. ‘“ The power of life,’ is the quickening 7z/flwence, not the Sub- 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 293 


“νιν es pe i ee 


we have already said, because He united to Himself, [that is] to His 
EE Se μον Ὁ τὺ nn ee meen Se 
stance of the Holy Ghost, which operates in and through ¢he things that lie before 
us, that is, the leavened bread and wine, and changes them, mere bread and 
wine, to the energy of His own body, in that by that spiritual influence we are 
made stronger spiritually, if we receive aright. As God the Word sent spiritual 
influence into His Apostles when with the mouth of His human body and with 
the breath of His human body, ‘‘ He breathed on them, and saith unto them, 
Receive ye the Holy Ghost’? (John xx., 22), so he operates on us by sending 
spiritual influences of life and energy into us by the instruments and vehicles of 
leavened bread and wine, the body and blood of the Word in the Eucharist. 
And as Cyril teaches, as he mingles that body of bread and wine with ours he 
mingles also His grace by the Spirit with us soul and body and san¢tifies us as we 
are willing to receive His grace, as He does in the case of an infant also, for 
he puts no obstacle of sin in the way. ’ 


And as the spirit energized through Christ’s human body by its touch to 
heal the sick (Matt. viii, 15; ix., 29, 30; xiv., 36; Mark vii. 33 to 36; Luke 
xxii., 51), and as the gift of healing was wrought by the indwelling Word operat- 
ing through His Spirit (I. Cor. xii., 9, 11), so does the Word also operate by His 
Ἢ Spirit in the leavened bread and wine, the body not of @ common man but of 
God the Word, Who indwells them not by His Substance, nor by the Substance 
of God the Spirit, but by Its sanctifying influences, and does avail to benefit us 
and to heal by Its help our spiritual maladies. 


On pages 274, 275 and 276 we see that St. Athanasius, St. Cyril’s teacher, 
whom he professed to follow in every thing, was strong against the cannibal 
sense of John vi., and strong for the spiritual. 


To sum up St. Cyril’s do@rine against Nestorius: We do not eat Christ’s 
Divinity, nor the substance of his human flesh and blood in the Eucharist, but 
God the Word relatively enters us by His Spirit, that is ‘‘ Divimely”’ in that 
sense,and we feed on Him spiritually by cherishing His spiritual influences; and 
He enters us “ humanly” by sending the energy, not the substance, of His body 
into “‘ the things which lie before us,’ that is the ‘‘ leavened bread and wine,”’ 
which in the Rite by that sending are made the flesh and blood notof His human- 
ity born of Mary but of God the Word Himself. For the flesh and blood, aye the 
whole humanity born of Mary are in heaven above at the right hand of the 
Father, where they are indwelt by the Substance of God the Word. So that 
when Christ says, Zhis is my body, This is my blood, it is God the Word who 
speaks, and who by those words signifies His body of leavened bread, and His 
blood of wine, not the body born of Mary. For God the Word does relatively 
dwell in bread and wine, not by His Substance, but by the quickening energy of 
His Spirit, as Cyril teaches on page 264 of this note, and by the exergy of His 
body, as He did dwell and still dwells by His Eternal Substance incarnate, as 
Cyril there teaches, in His human body taken of the Virgin. By this saving 
doétrine of the great teacher Cyril, approved at Ephesus, all cannibalism is 
avoided, and the Word’s quickening, sanctifying and saving influences in the 


294 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Substance (644), His humanity, and underwent a fleshly birth out 


Rite are glorified, and the teaching of Christ’s Holy-Ghost-led Universal 
Church shines as bright as the sun, in contrast with the Man-eating heresies 
which degrade and lower Christ and His Church and His doctrine with a host 
of absurd discussions and consequences, such as the Stercorian controversy for 
instance, and others too numerous to mention here. 

Outside of the Orthodox Do¢trine there are three other main views, that is, 
Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and the merely Symbolic. 

I will treat of these in theirorder. And first of 7vansubstantiation, which 
we will call Class A. 

(A). Of this there are two kinds, which are destructive of each other; that 
is the Latin error, and the Greek. 

Both expressly contradict the first three points of St. Cyril’s doctrine above, 
namely: 

1. The real absence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity from the Rite: 

2. The veal absence of the substance of His flesh and blood which were 
born of Mary, and the denial that they are eaten there: 


3. That there is nothing in the Rite to worship. 


Besides, there are wide and irreconcilable differences between those two 
idolatrous Communions: 

(a) As to the use of the leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Greeks making 
it essential, the Latins asserting that unleavened wafers must be used by all 
of the Latin Rite: 

(6), As to the recipients, the Greeks asserting that in accordance with prim- 
itive belief and usage, infants must receive it in order to salvation; the Latins 
forbidding infants of the Latin Rite to partake of it: 


(c), As to the celebrant, the Greeks of the four Oriental Patriarchates and of 
Greece insisting that the Latin priest is without baptism or ordination, and 
therefore that he cannot celebrate a valid Eucharist; whereas the Latins, while 
admitting the validity of the Greek priesthood and Eucharist, brand the Greeks 
as schismatics; an expression which the Greeks retort on the Latins and call 
them heretics also. 


Leaving Transubstantiation Heresies, we turn now to the second class, de- 
signated, Class B. Of CONSUBSTANTIATION HERESIES there are at least three, 
which differ irreconcilably from each other and more or less negative each other. 

They are as follows: 


I. Theoldest, which is that of Nestorius and his disciple Theodoret, which 
asserts, like the Orthodox, that the Substance of Christ’s Divinity is not on the 
Holy Table in the Rite, is not received by the Communicant, and is not in him 
at any time. But it teaches that at least four things are consubstantiated by 
consecration, that is, 


(1). The substance of the leavened bread, and, 


Reading of Cyrils Long Epistle to Nestorius. 295 


of her womb, not that He needed as a matter of necessity, that is on 


(2). The substance of the wine ; 

(3). The substance of Christ’s human flesh, and, 

(4). The substance of Christ’s human blood. 

It is therefore a Four Things Consubstantiation. Possibly, though I am not 
certain, both those heretics may have held to the Consubstantiation of Six 
Things, that is, 

(1). To the substance of leavened bread ; 

(2). To the substance of the wize mixed with water according to the Ortho- 
dox view; 

(3). To the substance of the human flesh of Christ; 

(4). To the substance of His human blood ; 

(5). To the substance of His human mind, and 

(6). To the substance of His human soul. 

In that case they were Six Things Consubstantiationists. 

We come to the [Ind kind of Consubstantiation heresy, that is the Lutheran 
error, which holds to the Consubstantiation of seven things in the Rite, but oly 
during tts usé, namely: 

(1), The substance of the unleavened wafer ; 

(2). The substance of wine unmixed with water, generally ; 

(3). The eternal Substance of Christ’s Divinity ; 

(4). The substance of His human flesh born of Mary ; 

(5). The substance of His human blood taken from Meey and born of Mary; 

(6). The substance of His human mind ; 

(7). The substance of His human soul. 

This is a Seven Things Consubstantiation therefore. Many Lutherans in 
our time do not hold it. It includes also the additional heresy of Communica- 
tio Idiomatum, which contradicts the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation, 
of all the sufferings and other things of the Man put on, to God the Word Who 
put on that creature, but fo1bids us to Appropriate anything belonging Naturally 
to God the Word before the Incarnation, that is His Name, God, His Worship, 
or His Divine Attributes, to the mere creature put on, the human nature, the in- 
finitely inferior nature of His Two. See Cyril’s Shorter Epistle above, Sec?ion 
77., pages 60-112, and the Longer Epistle, pages 217-241, and the XII. Anathemas 
at itsend. Those Epistles, of course, as being approved by the whole Church 
at Ephesus, have all authority, and any doctrine which contradicts them is by 
that very fact heretical and anathematized. Every Protestant should reject the 
heresy of Communication of Properties, for it necessarily leads to creature-wor- 
ship. And every Protestant should carefully guard the Ecumenically approved 
doctrine of Economic Appropriation, because it guards against that sin. Seein 
the Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set under Economic Appropriation. 


296 Act I. of Ephesus. 


account of His own [Divine] Nature (645), that birth also which 


Those Lutherans who hold to Consubstantiation hold also to the heresy of 
Ubiguitarianism, that is, Everywhereism, that is, the error that the body of 
Christ is everywhere, and especially in the Eucharist, a folly which the English 
Church well and Orthodoxically condemns in the noble and very valuable 
Rubric and Declaration of Doctrine against adoration of Christ’s flesh and blood 
in the Eucharist, where it says that, 


“ The natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not 
here; it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in 
more places than one.”’ 


I judge that, so far as Protestants are concerned, the heresy exists among 
Lutherans alone, and is not held by some of them. Webster’s Dzé?zonary de- 
fines as follows on that matter: 


ςς Ubiguitarian * * * One of aschool of Lutheran divines; —so called 
from their tenet that the body of Christ is present everywhere, and especially in 
the Eucharist, in virtue of his omnipresence.’’ 


The heresy arose on the basis of a strange and plain blunder, the confound- 
ing God the Word’s infinite attribute of omnipresence, with the Substance of 
His Divinity, and with the finite substance of His Humanity. For the Sub- 
stance of His Divinity is now confined to heaven (Ads 111., 21), at the Father’s 
right hand, where Stephen saw Him (Adts vii., 55, 56), where He constantly 
pleads for us as our Great High Priest and Sole Mediator and Sole Intercessor 
(Heb. vii., 24, 25, and viii., 1; I. Tim. ii., 5; I. John ii., 1, 2). There alone the Sub- 
stance of the Divinity of God the Father is, where alone Christ tells us to invoke 
Him when we say, ‘‘ Our Father who art in Heaven’’ (Matt. vi., 9; Luke xi., 2), 
God the Word is everywhere by ¢he infinite attribute of omnipresence, not 
by the Substance of His Divinity. Any one of any fair logical mind can see at 
once that if He were present by the Substance of His Divinity everywhere, It 
must be in every garbage heap, and in every water closet, and must also occupy 
just the same space that the garbage and the excrement do, and inasmuch as His 
Divinity is to be worshipped wherever It is, therefore, in that case, It must be 
worshipped as in the garbage, and as in the excrement, and as in the smallest 
part thereof. Tosuch absurd and blasphemous conclusions are we brought by 
such confounding of God’s Substance with His attributes. Aye, it sanctions 
idolatry, for if God’s Substance is everywhere, It is in the idols of the heathen 
and must be worshipped in them. But away with premises which force us to 
such God-forbidden sins and conclusions. 


And if the whole Substance of Christ’s Divinity and the whole substance of 
His Humanity are together in every such garbage heap and in every water 
closetand in every idol, and occupy exactly the same space as the garbage does, 
and as the excrements do, and as the idol does, we can easily see the silly and 
absurd and blasphemous conclusion that every piece of the garbage and every 
piece of the excrement has in it whole Christ, body and blood, soul and Divin- 
ity, by a sort of Consubstantiation, and so has every idol. I need not dwell on 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 297 


was in time and in the last periods of the world (646); but that He 


such blasphemous drivel longer. It is too bad even for an idiot asylum ora 
lunatic asylum. 

We come now to the 7774 kind of Consubstantiation heresy, that is to the 
Keble-Pusey error, which teaches the Consubstantiation of Seven Things, but 
differs from Luther’s kind of Consubstantiation in holding that Christ’s Divinity 
and Humanity are with the consecrated elements, not only in use but always 
after consecration, and so they reserve it and adore it in their idolatrous places 
of assembling which they misname Churches. 

Those Seven Things are 


(1). The substance of the unleavened wafer often, sometimes the substance 
of leavened bread; for some of the sect practice one way and some another on 
that point, though the general tendency, I think, is to Latinism on that matter, 
for from the start the drift of those heretics has been towards Rome and its cus- 
toms, that Rome in which so many hundreds of them, clerics, and so many 
thousands of silly men and silly women, led into idolatry by such wicked clerics, 
have finalby landed. 


(2). The substance of wine, generally, I think, mixed with water. 

(3). The Eternal Substance of Christ’s Divinity, 

(4). The substance of His real flesh taken from Mary and born of Mary. 
(5). The substance of His real blood taken from Mary and born of Mary. 
(6). The substance of His human mind. 

(7). The substance of His human soul. 


Every one of this new-fangled sect therefore is a Seven-Things Consubstan- 
tiationist, and so differs from the Nestorian, who was a Four- or Six-Things Con- 
substantiationist, as Theodoret, the notorious champion of that school shows. 
And every Keble-Pusey heretic differs, as has been just said, from the Lutheran 
Consubstantiationist in holding that the Seven Things Consubstantiation abides 
not only 772 the use, but always after consecration, and hence, contrary to His 
own Eucharistic Rubrics, which require the consumption of the unused conse- 
crated bread and wine after Communion, he reserves them for adoration and so 
turns what he calls God’s holy Sacrament into a means of bringing in idolatry 
into his own Reformed Communion, and, so, of damning his own soul and of 
incurring the added and fearful guilt of damning the souls of others. 


_ The Bishops of the Anglican Communion everywhere should either depose 
every one of their prelates, presbyters, and deacons, guilty of the Consubstanti- 
ation heresy and its idolatry of worshipping Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist, 
where It is not, or His body and blood there, or guilty of suffering such error 
within his jurisdiction, or guilty of not openly denouncing them and doing his 
full duty zealously of guarding his flock against them. So they should excom- 
municate every laic guilty of such idolatry. 


In case any bishop fails to do his full duty in deposing and excommunicat- 
ing such heretics, he should himself be deposed and excommunicated at once. 


298 Act I. of Ephésus. 


po nn LL. ΟΝ 


might bless the very beginning of our existence, and that by His 


So will they act after the example of Athanasius and of St. Cyril of Alexandria 
against creature-serving heretics and their aiders and abettors, like John of 
Antioch, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others. If there be only one sound bishop 
(and there are many more), he cannot be disciplined by any heretical creature- 
worshippers, as the Canons of the first Four Ecumenical Councils show; for, 
from the beginning, it has been a God-required duty of all, clergy and people, 
to act like the Angel, that is, as Angel means, Messenger, that is in this case 
Messenger to Men, that is Bishop, of the Church of Ephesus, 20 iry them which 
say they are apostles and are not, and to find them liars (Rev. ii., 2). Blessed 
is every Bishop in every National Church and in every Race Church to whom 
Christ will say at the last solemn day as he said to the Bishop of Ephesus: ““Unto 
the angel of the Church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth 
the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden 
candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou 
canst not bear them which are evil; and THOU HAST TRIED THEM WHICH SAY 
THEY ARE APOSTLES, AND ARE NOT, AND HAST FOUND THEM LIARS Δ (Revs 
11 1.2}: 

The Bishops of the First Ecumenical Synod tried Arian Bishops who un- 
doubtedly had the Apostolic succession in orders but uot in doctrine, and found 
them creature-servers on their own profession, anathematized them in their 
Creed at its end, and thrust them out of the society of the faithful. So did they 
in their Canon XIX. with the Paulianists, the disciples of the heretic and 
creature-server, Paul of Samosata, who had the succession in orders in the epis- 
copate but not in do¢trine. 


Aye, in its Canon XI. it puts those who had fallen into the sin of worshipping 
an image, or invoking a creature to twelve years of public penance, and Canon 
XII. puts another class of such offenders to thirteen years. 


And in every Communion possessing valid baptism and valid orders that 
should be done with every baptized man who falls into such sins by going to 
Rome or to any other idolatrous Communion and sharing such sins, unless, on 
his sincere amendment, the bishop of his Parecia may, according to Canon XIL., 
dispense with the penalty. For baptized Paganism is apostasy from Christ, as 
the Nestorian worship of His mere separate human nature is termed in the 
Canons of Ephesus, and it is the worst kind of idolatry because the transgressor 
has light and the heathen has not. 


The Second Ecumenical Council in its Canon I. anathematizes various sects 
of heretics who on their own confession were creature-worshippers, who had 
Bishops who had the succession from the beginning but who had forsaken the 
succession in do¢trine. Its Canon VII. openly rejects the orders of six such 
sects, namely, the Arians, the Macedonians, the Sabbatians, the Novatians, the 
Quartodecimans or Tetradites, and the Apollinarians. It admitted only their 
baptism because they had not altered the design of baptism, that is, the doctrine 
that it is ‘(for the remission of sins” (Acts ii., 38), a doctrine confessed by the 


heading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius 299 


being united to flesh and then being brought forth by a woman, the 


whole Church in the Creed of the Second World-Council in the utterance, ‘‘ We 
acknowledge one dipping FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS;’’ nor the mode, trine im- 
mersion; nor the form of words, that is the formula, ‘‘ 22 the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’? (Matt. xxviii., 19). Other heretics 
who had the succession in the episcopate, but had forsaken the succession on the 
Trinity and in addition on one or more of the aforesaid three things in baptism, 
were to be received by that Canon not only as without orders but also as unbap- . 
tized. Such sects were the Eunomians, whom that Canon VII. brands as bap- 
tized ‘‘ with one tmmersion’’ (Hammond’s translation), who, as Theodoret tells 
us in his work on Heretical Fables, Book IV., Chapter III., changed the trine im- 
mersion into single immersion, and abolished the Christ-given form of words, 
thatis, baptism 7722 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, and substituted for them one only dip into Christ’s death, a heresy as to 
the form of words, by the way, in which they were followed by Pope Nicholas I. 
in the ninth century, in his Answers to the Bulgarians. ‘The place of Theo- 
doret is translated into English in Chrystal’s History of the Modes of Baptism, 
page 78. 

The Third Ecumenical Synod in its canons deposes all Nestorian Bishops 
and Clerics and excommunicates all their laics. The Fourth Council, in its 
Definition, deposes all Monophysite Bishops and Clerics, and excommunicates 
all Monophysite laics. So the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, in its Definition at 
the end, deposes heretical Bishops and Clerics, and excommunicates heretical 
laics; and so does the Sixth at the end of its noble Definition. And yet it is 
clear and admitted by all that the Bishops and other Clerics so deposed, that is, 
those of the Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites, had the succession in 
the episcopate, but had lost that in doftrine, and had all become creature-wor- 
shippers; for the Nestorians worshipped relatively to God the Word, that is as 
they said, decause of God the Word, and for His sake, their mere human, crea- 
ted Christ, and so were guilty of the sin which St. Cyril charges them with, that 
15, ἀνθρωπολατρεια, that is, the Worship of a Man, which of course is Creature- 
Worship, that is, an apostasy to the fundamental error of paganism. See Cyril’s 
answer to their evasion of Relative Worship on pages 221-224 above, and notes 
580 to 584, and Cyril’s utterances on page 87, note, and all of note 183. 


And the Monophysites are also, 7722 fact, creature-worshippers, whatever 
may be their intention, for inasmuch as they worship the humanity of Christ as 
now transubstantiated into Divinity, and as making but One Nature with God 
the Word, they are really, without intending it, Man-Worshippers. They 
sometimes explain the change somewhat as the Romanists explain their Tran- 
substantiation in the Eucharist, by saying, in effect, that the appearance, or 
species, or accidents, of His hnmanity remain, but not its substance; that, they 
say, has been transubstantiated into Divinity. 

All these three Consubstantiation heresies, except the first, that of Nes- 
torius, contradict all four of the Orthodox Eucharistic positions above. The 
Nestorian contradicts the last three only. 


900 7 of ΕΖ 1: 


curse against all the race, which sends to death our earthly 


We turn now to another class of views on the Eucharist which we may de- 
nominate Class C. 

They are, I, the Zwinglian, which some call the merely Symbolic, or merely 
Memorial. 


This agrees with positions 1, 2 and 3 of St. Cyril above specified, which 
were adopted, in effect, by the Universal Church in the Third Ectimenical 
Council; but is more or less different from Cyril’s point 4 above. For Cyril, 
in accordance with the custom of the whole Church in his time and from the 
beginning, gave the bread and wine to infants. But infants can not have faith. 
Consequently Cyril could not have held that in their case at least faith is the 
means by which they receive the sacrament, though of course it is admitted by 
all that in the case of children who have come to years of understanding, and in 
the case of all others, faith and love and hope are such means and necessary. 


Zwinglianism would seem to hold that the Lord’s Supper is not universally 
necessary to salvation, for it generally, I think always, or nearly always ex- 
cludes infants from it on the ground that they can not have faith, an argument 
which would exclude them from Baptism also. 


2. The Calvinistic view, which, like the Zwinglian, agrees with points 1, 
2 and 3 of St. Cyril’s doctrine above, but like it differs more or less from his 
point 4, much as Zwinglianism does, by not making it essential to salvation for 
infants as well as for adults. It agrees, however, mainly otherwise with Cyril’s 
doctrine, as does, less closely, Zwingli’s on point 4. 


Indeed the idolatrizer and creature-worshipper, John Henry Blunt, in his 
Dictionary of Dottrinal and Hstorical Theology under Real Presence says. 
that inasmuch as Calvin “‘asserts that our Lord’s human nature can only be 
present at the right hand of God, and can not in any sense whatever be present 
under Eucharistic signs,’’ and held ‘‘that the words of Institution are to be 
explained figuratively or metaphorically,”’ therefore his view and Zwingli’s 
‘Care really identical.” Blunt adds as aclincher, ‘‘Indeed, only two rational 
opinions on the subject are possible—a real presence or a real absence.”’ St. 
Cyril differs from him in the passages above quoted from him, by teaching in 
effect that only one opinion on the subject is rational, that is the veal absence 
of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the rite, and the vea/ absence of the sub- 
stance of His Mary-born flesh and blood, which is Cyril’s doétrine as advocated 
in works written by him before Ephesus and presumably known to the 
assembled Prelates, that is, in his /zve Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies 
of Nestorius, and in the above Long Epistle to Nestorius, where, in effect, 
Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist is proclaimed to be not the flesh of His humanity 
but of God the Word, that is as Cyril explains above, the things which lie before 
us, that is His body of leavened bread and His blood of wine which become to 
all who receive them worthily, including infants, means and instruments of 
eternal life, and resurrection, and salvation (John vi., 33, 48-64). Foran infant 
receives worthily because he is by his baptism and confirmation a member of 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 901 


bodies (647) might therefore cease (648), and that the, ‘/2 sorrow 


Christ’s covenant and therefore has a right to partake of the aftertypes of the 
great sacrifice of Calvary as the Israelitish infant had a right to partake of the 
Passover Lamb, the foretype of that sacrifice under the Mosaic Covenant; and 
he presents no barrier in the way of wilful rejection of those saving rites. For 
it is wilful rejection and continual and perverse habits of sin, and not the 
innocent years of baptized infancy, which bar from Communion and its promises 
of resurrection and eternal life and of grace as we can receive it. 


The dodirine of the real presence of God’s sanctifying and saving grace 
only in the leavened bread and wine on the one hand and the real absence of 
the Substance of Christ’s Divinity and the real absence of His human flesh and 
blood on the other (all of which, Divinity and humanity, are in heaven alone), 
are the watchwords of the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, which, under 
God, he led. 


The use of the expression Real Presence to assert the actual presence of the 
Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist and the actual presence of the 
substance of His humanity there, or of His Mary-born flesh and blood alone 
there, is utterly unknown to primitive Christian writers and is purely medieval. 


We do indeed find in the writings of Nestorius and of his strong partisan 
Theodoret, in the first part of the fifth century the doctrine of the real presence 
and real manducation there, not of His Divinity at all, but of His humanity 
only, or of His flesh and blood only; but not, so far as I have seen, the expres- 
sion Real Presence. And the noteworthy thing is that they were heretics, not 
Orthodox, and that, so far as appears, they were the first to promulge that 
heresy of the actual presence of His Mary-born flesh and blood there, or of His 
Mary-born whole humanity there. 


Besides, and this fact is all important and decisive, St. Cyril’s dodirine of 
the Real Absence from the Lord’s Supper of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity 
and of the substance of His humanity is approved by the Third Ecumenical 
Council, and Nestorius was deposed, among other causes, by it for denying it: 
and so by necessary implication the doctrine of the real presence of the Sub- 
stance of his Divinity and of the substance of His humanity is there condemned, 
and of course the expression Real Presence, used by heretics, such as Transub- 
stantiationists and Consubstantiationists, to enshrine their idolatry in, in 
worshipping either or both those substances there is likewise condemned by 
necessary implication, and forbidden. 


We should therefore scrupulously avoid it. In Post-Reformation times, 
when even some scholars, able in other things, did not know well the ques- 
tions involved in the struggle between St. Cyril and Nestorius on the Eucharist, 
nor the Holy Spirit guided, final, andirreversible Decision of the Third Council 
of the whole Church on the matter, they some times used the expression Peal 
Presence but not in the Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation sense. This is 
shown by Rev. Wm. Goode in his citation of Anglican authors in chapter VIL, 
Vol. Il. of his work On the Eucharist. But now it should cease forever, for 


902 ΚΖ I. of Ephesus. 


shalt thou bring forth children’ (649), might be abolished through 


that use is perverted by Romanists to favor their idolatry in the Rite. Indeed 
the expression was invented by them in the middle ages to signify their error 
and should be left to them. It is enough for us to know that it has been con- 
demned by necessary implication, with the Transubstantiation or Consub- 
stantiation which it stands for. That it has been used incautiously by great 
Anglicans should not surprise us, for we must remember that the Schoolmen of 
the middle ages and the idolatrous local Councils of the West and similar Con- 
venticles in the East had opposed and overset and practically nullified and 
abolished the Decisions on the Eucharist and on Creature-Worship and on some 
other matters of the Six World-Synods, and had substituted for them their own 
heresies on those themes; and that, after the Reformation even, men did not at 
once get to know what the Six Councils had said on those dogmas, and still 
used some of the Shibboleths of a corrupt and corrupting idolatrous scholasti- 
cism, the expression Real Presence among them. (@). 


(a). Among the XLII. Articles of A. D. 1552 of the Church of England, in Article XXIX., 
now XXVIIL., ‘‘Of the Lord’s Supper,’ occurs the following condemnation of the doctrine of the 
Real and Corporal presence, and of that expression which embodies it. Itranslate it from the 
T.atin, as found in The Prayer Book Interleaved, by Campion and Beamont (Cambridge, Eng., 
and Pott and Young, New York, 1869, page 388): 

‘‘Rorasmuch as the reality of human nature requires that the body of one and the same 
man can not be in many places at the same time, but that it must be in some one definite 
place, therefore the body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same 
time. And since, as the Sacred Scriptures teach, Christ was taken up to heaven and will re- 
main there to the end of the world, zone of the farthful ought either to believe or to profess the 
Real and Corporal Presence, as they term tt, of Hts flesh and blood tn the Eucharist.” 

‘“ This,’’ writes Bishop Harold Browne on Article XXVIII. (page 713 of the American edition 
of his work on the XX XIX. Articles), “ nearly corresponds with the statement of the rubric at 
the end of our present Communion Service. Both the clause in the Article [just translated 
above] and the rubric were omitted in Elizabeth’s reign, lest persons inclined to the Lutheran 
belief might be too much offended by it; and many such were in the Church, whom it was 
wished to conciliate. The rubric was again restored in the reign of Charles II. The meaning 
ofitis * * * todeny * * * a ‘corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood,’ ‘and 
a consequent adoration of the elements, as though they did not remain still tn thetr very natural 
substances. ᾽" 

That glorious and noble Rubric, so thoroughly Cyrillian and Ephesine in its condemnation 
of both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Real Presence in the Eucharist of Christ’s 
human flesh and blood, their worship there, and their cannibal-use there by being eaten and 
drunk, was wrongly and unwisely left out of the American Book of Common Prayer. It reads 
as follows as it is now in the English Book: 

ἐς Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, thatthe 
Communicants should receive the same kneeling ; (which order is well meant, for a significa- 
tion of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all 
worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, 
as might otherwise ensue); yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ig- 
norance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved ; it is 
hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the 
Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s 
natural flesh and blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natu- 
ral substances and therefore may not be adored; (FOR THAT WERE IDOLATRY, TO BE ABHORRED 
OF ALL FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS); andthe natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ arein 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 303 


Him, and [so] that He might show the truth of the following expres- 


Another thing should be avoided. Many writers, not knowing the heresy 


heaven, and not here; 22} being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one timein 
more places than one.”’ 

In the Prayer Book Interleaved, page 181, we read a further explanation of the above as 
follows: 

‘The declaration concerning kneeling was added as a rubric by order of Council in 1552, 
was omitted in 1559, and restored in 1662, when the words ‘corporal presence of Christ’s natu- 
ral flesh and blood,’ were substituted for ‘veal and essential presence there being of Christ’s 
natural flesh and blood.’”’ 

This last Rubric and Declaration of Doctrine is also decidedly Cyrillian and Ephesine and 
should have been retained and perfected. It must be restored. I quote the whole Declaration 
as it stands in the Second Prayer Book of Edward [7]., A. D. 1552. As the work of martyred 
Reformers and Restorers of Christ’s true religion who are now with Him in heaven, it deserves 
to be well remembered. It is as follows: 

‘* Although no order can be so perfectly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ig- 
norance and infirmity, or else for malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and inter- 
preted in a wrong part, and yet because brotherly charity willeth that, so much as conven- 
iently may be, offences should be taken away ; therefore we, willing to do thesame, [do hereby 
declare that], 

Whereas, it is ordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the administration of the Lord’s 
Supper, that the communicants kneeling should receive the same, which thing being well 
meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledgiug of the benefits of Christ, 
given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder which about the 
Holy Communion might else ensue; lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken 
otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done, or ought to be 
done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real or es- 
sential presence there being, of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacra- 
mental bread and wine, they remain stillin their very natural substances, and therefore may 
not beadored, for that were IDOLATRY, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians, And as con- 
cerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven, and not here, 
for it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body to be in more places than one.”’ 

One other expression in the Prayer Book, in the Catechism, which page 199 of the Prayer 
Book Interleaved tells us was no part of it originally and was not added indeed till A. D. 1604, 
and has been attributed to Overall, should be conformed more to the mind of St. Cyril and of 
Ephesus ; I refer to the assertion that ‘‘the body and blood of Christ * * * are verilyand 
indeed taken and recetved by the faithfulin the Lord's Supper,’? which may mean Transubstan- 
tiation or Consubstantiation. Someof St. Cyril’s explanatory language about sending the 
power of life into the things which 116 before us should be substituted for it. 

The learned Anglican, Rev. William Goode, in his work On the Eucharist, page 757, 
speaking of the expression, Real Presence, says: 

““The ambiguity of the phrase, and its misapplication by the Church of Rome, have in- 
duced many of our divines to repudiate it; and our Church, as Dean Aldrich has observed, kas 
wisely forborne tis use; but others for the similar purpose of preventing misconception and 
meeting the misrepresentations of the Romanists, have maintained and contended for its use. 

‘*The real doctrine ofour divines, therefore, is not to be sought in their use or rejection of 
this phrase, but in the meaning they attach to it, and their accompanying statements.” 

On the same expression Real Presence, the same Rev. Wm. Goode, on the Eucharist, pages 
36, 38, quotes ‘‘Dr. Aldrich, Dean of Christ Church in 1687’’ (page 36). who writes as on page 38, id., 
that it is not so easy to conceive how a natural substance can be said to be ‘‘ really present 
when at the same time it is Jocally absent.’ He then adds, 

‘* Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborne to use the term of Real Presence in 
all the Books that are set forth by her authority. We neither find it recommended in the Lit- 
urgy, nor the Articles, nor the Homilies, nor the Church’s nor Nowell’s Catechism. For al- 


804 Act 7. of Ephesus. 


sion of the prophet : ‘‘ Death prevailed and swallowed [men] up,;’’ and, 


of Theodoret, have quoted some of his Nestorian utterances above cited as 


though it be once in the Liturgy, and once more in the Articles [‘‘ he means in the Liturgy and 
Articles of 1552’? Goode] it is mentioned in both places as a phrase of the Papists, and rejected 
for their abuse οὔτέ. Sothatif any Churchof England man use tt, he does more than the 
Church directs him ; if any reject it, he /:as the Church’s example to warrant him: and τέ would 
very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after so gooda copy.” 
The italics are in Goode’s quotation. 


In refusing to admit the phrase Real Presence the blessed Reformers of the Church of Eng- 
land are at one with the Universal Church in the Six Ecumenical Councils, for it never uses 
the heretical words, nor authorizes any one to use them, but by its approval of St. Cyril’s teach- 
ing on the Eucharist, it in effect forbids them. 

Some idolatrizers of our day, traitors to their own Anglican Communion, try to evade the 
condemnation of their worship of Christ’s body in the above Declaration of the Church of 
England, by saying that they do not worship His ‘‘xatural body,” but His spiritual body, which 
is at the Father’s right hand and in thousands of Eucharists at the same time. 

But this is a mere makeshift, for the English Church shows that by Chris?’s natural body it 
means His body of human nature, for it certainly is not of God’s Divine Nature, and there is 
now only one sort of body of Christ, and it is that very body of Christ which the crafty Jesuiti- 
cal and Puseyite evader calls the spirztual body, for the Anglican Communion explains the 
meaning of its expression ‘‘ zatural body’’ in the very Declaration which forbids its worship 
by defining as follows: ‘‘ And as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, 
they are in heaven, and not here, for it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body to be 
in more places than one.’? Here wesee that this Declaration and Explanation of A. D. 1552, 
makes Christ’s zatural body to be the only body of Christ now existing, that is, His spzrztual 
body which is ‘‘in heaven and not here; and then follows a denial of the Ubiquitarian heresy 
held by some Lutherans, which asserts that it may be in the Eucharist. ‘hat Declaration, 
the present Declaration at the end of the English Church Communion Office, and the XXIXth 
Article of A. D. 1552, all agree that Christ’s body and blood are in heaven alone, and the sum 
oftheir teaching is that the spiritual body and the natural body are the same, the one sole body 
now existing, and all these are aimed specially against all Consubstantiation and all Tran- 
substantiation notions of a real presence of many bodies of Christ in the Eucharist and against 
their worship there. 

But in reply it may be said that the Church of England is certainly wrong in identifying 
the spiritual with the natural body, for in I. Corinthians xv., 42, 43, and 44, the body which we 
use on earth and which is put into the grave is called ‘‘ a natural body,’’ whereas the body 
which is razsed again is termed ‘‘a sfirttual body.’ Hence Christ’s body on earth was ‘‘a 
naturac body,’’ and as such was buried, but was raised ‘‘a spiritual body.’” Those verses are 
as follows: ‘So also ts the resurrection of the dead. Itis sown tn corruption, τέ 15 ratsed in 
incorruption Ittssown in dishonor; ttts ratsedin glory. It ts sownin weakness; tt ts raised 
wn power. Itissowna natural body, τέ τς raised a spirttual body. Therets a natural body, and 
there ts a spiritual body.” 

To this I reply that the passage alleged from I. Cor. xv., 42, 43, and 44, is a plain mistrans- 
lation, and has been the cause of a great dealof bungling. The error lies in translating by 
natural body, what does not mean that but sozlish body; that is, in those two verses Paul 
contrasts the human body governed by the fallen human soul with the spiritual human body, 
that is, the body governed not by the fallen human soul but by the Spirit of the living God. 
And indeed all admit that our bodies are more or less governed bythe fallen sinful human 
soul here, but after their resurrection are governed by God’s Holy Spirit. But though Christ 
had a human soul it was not like ours, a fallen soul. For as Cyril well says, on page 262 above, 
of Christ, ‘‘ Who, forasmuch as He is God, is free from all sin. For although αἱ have sinned 
and come short of the glory of God (Rom. iii., 23], inasmuch as we have become prone to stray, 
aud man’s nature is diseased with sin, nevertheless He is not so, and therefore we come short 
of His glory.’? Consequently His real natural body, that is, His human-nature body, never 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 305 


again, ‘‘God wiped away every tear from every face’’ (650). For that 


though they expressed the voice of Orthodoxy. That fault has not been con- 


was asoulish body in the sense that ours are, that is, in the sense of being governed by the sin- 
ful human soul, precisely because His human soul was always a holy and sinless soul, for it 
and all of His humanity was ever spotless, because always sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Luke 
i., 35; Heb. iv., 15, and Heb. ix., 14). Hence His body could never be called a soulish body in 
the fallen sense, as ours can; for at least 27: the sense of being governed by the Holy Ghost it was 
always on earth, as itis nowin heaven, a spiritual body, thoughit was taken from Adam and was 
and is material like ours, and was and is πον οὗ one substance with ours, as the Universal 
Church has well and clearly defined in the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and 
in that of the Sixth also, and in the letter of Leo, approved by the Fourth Council, and in effect 
in St. Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch, approved by it. Christ’s is no Docetic body therefore, 
but one that is real and genuine; and as Man Heis as thoroughly consubstantial with us men 
as in His Divinity He is Consubstantial with His Father, as the aforesaid Definitions teach. 
For His risen spiritual body could be felt, and seen, for He said to His disciples, "" Behold my 
hands and my feet, that τέ ἐς 7, Myself; handle Me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, 
as ye seemehave, And when He had thus spoken, He showed them Hts hands and Hts feet,” 
(Luke xxiv., 39, 40). And after doubting Thomas wished proof that Christ’s real body had 
risen, and said: Except 7 shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into 
the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into Hts side, 1 will not believe, the Lord appeared 
unto him and said, Reach hither thy finger,and behold My hands, and reach hither thy hand, 
and thrust τέ into Mv stde, and be not fatthless but believing (John xx., 25-30). Withthat rzsex 
spirttual body He ate and drank, and thatin order to show them that His risen sfzrztual body 
was still materzal (Luke xxiv., 36-44; compare ActS x., 41). Aye, to make it still stronger, if it 
could be made stronger, that His risen spiritual body is material He promised to drink the 
fruit of the vine with His Apostles in His Father's Kiugdom (Matt. xxvi., 29; Mark xiv., 25, 
and Luke xxii., 18). Compare the noble Article IV. of the Church of England. 


So that Christ’s risen spiritual body was, and is, like ours, a body of flesh and bones just 
as material as it ever was, and, so far as appears, just as tall and as large asit ever was. The 
only difference now is that it is immortal (Rom. vi., 9). So that the Church of England 
Article XXIX. of A. Ὁ. 1552, in identifying the veal with the corporal presence of Christ was 
perfectly right. For corporal means bodily, and if His body is really present there, it is present 
Sodily. And ifit is all there under each crumb of bread, and is all taken with each crumb of 
bread, there is a full grown body with each crumb, and that full body has flesh and bones (Luke 
xxiv., 39) And the Declaration of A. D.1552 was right in identifying the ‘‘veal’’ with the 
*‘essential’’ [that is substance] presence * * * of Christ’s natural flesh and blood in the Eucha- 
rist, and in forbidding that error and the error of worshipping them there. How much better 
than such errors is the Orthodox do¢trine ot St. Cyril and of Ephesus on the Rite ἢ 


- One can show further absurdities of all real presence and corporal manducation heresies 
if he will. For instance, if whole Christ, as the Romanist alleges, be under each crumb or 
particle of the bread or wafer, he who takes twelve such crumbs or particles has twelve whole 
Men inside of him, each of them full grown. But surely another miracle must be wrought for 
one stomach to contain them. Ifit be said that all this is mystery, and must be received as 
such, I answer that it is contradiction, and therefore not a mystery at all, for it not only con- 
tradicts common sense and our own eyes and taste and feeling, but alsothe Holy Spirit guided 
teachings on the Eucharist of St. Cyril, as approved by Ephesus. It is not even as probable as 
Docetism, for it admitted a body in appearance. But here there is not even the appearance of 
a body. And time and space fail me to push the error that we may eat twelve or more whole 
Christs in the Communion to its logical result, as men did in the Middle Ages, in Stercorian- 
ism, etc. Tosum up, all Real Presence talk endsat last in mistiness, cannibalism, and contra- 
dicting the doctrine of the whole Church at Ephesus, and in utter absurdity. 

We see then that Christ's sinless body, though sown a soulish body in the sense of having 
asinless human soul, nevertheless was a sinless body in life, in death, after its resurrectionand 


always. So that Christ’s body is as really a material body like ours so far as its human sub- 


906 Act I. of Ephesus. 


—————————— 


reason we assert that Economically (651) He blessed marriage itself 
ld eS eee 
fined to any one party or Communion. For instance, the Romish Archbishop 
Francis Patrick Kenrick in his 7heologia Dogmatica, Vol. III., Philadelphia, 
A. D. 1840, page 197, argues perversely enough and humorously and twistingly 
enough that Passage 2 of Theodoret on pages 279-252 above means the very 
thing it denies, that is Transubstantiation, and he asserts that Theodoret was a 


Catholic! (6) Thesame passage is mentioned by Goode on the Eucharist, page 583 
nn ee 
stance is concerned now asit was on earth, and so to eat it now and to drink its blood would be 
as much what St. Cyril calls ἀνθρωποφαγία, that is, Cannibalism, (St. Cyril’s Five Book Contra- 
diction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book IV., Sections 4and 5), as it ever was. 

I would add that we must remember that some things said of our fallen human bodies in 
I. Cor. xv., 42, 43 and 44, can not be said of His unfallen human body, that is, though every 
sinful soulish body is sown in corruption, because corruption is the result of sin (Rom. v., 12), 
yet Christ’s sinless soul-endowed spiritual body saw no corruption (Acts ii., 27, 31); and 
whereas the sinful body is sown in dishonor, for we die because of sin, and so death is the 
proof and dishonoring punishment of our sins, yet His death was honorable and glorious, be- 
cause it was the death of a sinless Victim to save all men. He died for sin, not that He Himself 
sinned. Sinful man’s body is sown a soulish body (wuyiKov), soulish, as opposed to πνευματ- 
ικόν, spiritual (I. Cor. xv., 44). The word, φυσικόν, natural, is not there at all. 

It is admitted on all hands to be a mistranslation. On looking over the Versionsin Lee’s 
Biblia Sacra Polyglotta,1 find the same error in the German, but not in Jerome’s Vulgate, 
which well renders the Greek ψυχιεκόν by animale, which signification is found in the French, 
Italian, and Spanish. 

But, objection: Jesus’ body is so immaterial that it can pass through doors after they are 
shut, for in no other way could He have entered to His disciples in John xx., 19, 26. Forit 
reads, “the doors having been shut,’ θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων. 

Answer. Scripture does not say that His body went through the wood or iron or other 
matter of doors. He may have entered in the common way by opening andshutting the doors 
miraculously, as God opened the prison doors for Peter in Acts xii., 10; and their eyes might 
have been holden that they might not recognize Him till He chose to make Himself known, as 
was the case with the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Luke xxiv., 13-36. And there are other 
waysin which He might enter to them without passing through wood or iron. For God is 
Almighty, aud can not be limited to act in the way we may choose to have Him act to save 
our argument. Allsuch reasonings are against the reality of His body and tend to Docetism, 
as do all Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation heresies; for all of them do, in effect, deny 
that His body is consubstantial with ours. 

(6). Asinstances ofthe extent and way in which the Holy-Ghost-guided testimony of the 
Third Council against the veal presence of Christ’s human flesh and his human blood in the 
Eucharist are perverted, belied, and nullified, and the heresies opposed to them are put into 
their places, it should be said that Francis Patrick Kenrick, who died the Romish Archbishop 
of Baltimore in A. Ὁ. 1863, in his Theologia Dogmatica, Vol. III., Philadelphia, A. D. 1840, 
actually has the partisan effrontery to adduce as a proof of the heresy ‘‘that there ts a true, 
realand Substance Presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist” 
(id., pages 159 and 166), the following passage from the longer Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius. 
above translated, (I first quote Kenrick’s Latin and then translate it, premising that this Epistle, 
as its heading on page 206 above shows, emanates not only from Cyril but from all the 
Bishops of his Diocese, that is, as we say now, from all the Bishops of his Patriarchate): 

Concilium Alexandrinum, 5. Cyrilli tempore habitum, in epistola ad Nestorium eucharistiae 
dogma aperte tradit; et contra Nestorium sic decernit: ‘‘ Sendium ac vivificum incruentumgue 
in Ecclestis Sacrificium peragimus; corpus quod proponttur, similiter et pretiosum sanguinem, 
non communis, nobisque similis homints cujuspiam esse credentes, sed potius tamguam proprium 
corpus effetium, sanguinem etiam Verbi, quod omnia vivificat, accipientes.”’ 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 307 


also, and attended one in Cana of Galilee, when He was invited, 


and after, where he argues, in effect, that it agrees with his own view which is. 


* * * Concilium Ephesinum Generale anathematismum hunc inter caeteros probavit, 
et ita demonstravit hanc fuisse totius orbis fidem. Below, in a note, Kenrick gives all the 
above, in my italics, as from ‘‘ Anathematismo ΧΙ. He evidently did not know the mean-. 
ing of his quotation. 

The English translation of the above adulterated passage quoted by Kenrick as St. Cyril’s, 
with Kenrick’s remarks on it, are as follows: 

‘“The Council of Alexandria held in the time of St. Cyril, in its Epistle to Nestorius trans- 
mits plainly the dogma of the Eucharist, and decrees as follows against Nestorius: 

‘We perform in the Churches the holy and quickening and unbloody sacrifice, not believing 
the body which is set forth, and likewise the precious blood to be [those] of some common man like 
us, but receiving them rather as having been madean own body and blood of the Word whois able 
to guicken all things.’”’ ‘From [St. Cyril’s] Anathema XI.” 

Kenrick continues, on page 173: 

‘The General Council of Ephesus approved that Anathema among others, and so showed 
that it was the faith of the whole world.’”’ 

Now let us examine this passage of Rome’s ablest champion ever in this land against the 
worship of God alone, and test his accuracy and reliability. 

In the first place he has made a blunder in adducing it as from St. Cyril’s Anathema or 
Anathematism XTJI., as any one can see by examining that Anathema towards the end of the 
above Epistle. 

In the second place he has not given the passage exactly, but has altered itso as to make it 
agree with his own heresy of the Reali Presence, and then has alleged it as a proof for it. 
Whether he himself was guilty of that adulteration ofit, or merely quoted it from some other 
idolatrizer who did that wicked work I know not. Ineither case he is not without fault, for 
even in the latter case he should either have mentioned the writer from whom he took the 
quotation, or should have verified it if he wished to give it as his own citation from the or- 
iginal. 

What he pretends to quote is really a farrago, made up partly out of Kenrick’s or some 
other idolatrizer’s own head, and partly from the text of the above Epistle of Cyril and his 
Council, on pages 232-240 in the translationin this work. The original Greek there translated 
does not prove Transubstantiation, but, on the contrary, contradicts it flatly on page 240, 
where he explicitly states that we do noteat * the flesh of a Man like oneofus, for how will the 
flesh of a man be itfe-producing by tts own nature ?” 

And Christ in common with us is a man, and his natural flesh born of Mary was flesh, as: 
the New Testament over and over again teaches, ‘the flesh of a Man Itke one of us,’ 
and not the flesh ofan angel ; Heb., ii., 16, “‘ For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, 
but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.,”’ 

And like ours it was liable to weariness, disease, and death. See what is said above on that 
matter in note 606, page 287, and in the last subnote, ‘‘a.’” The only thing in which His flesh 
differed from ours was in its being sinless like Adam’s flesh when first made and before he 
fell, only that Christ’s flesh ever remained sinless (Heb. iv., 15, ‘‘ yet without stn,’’) and Adam’s 
did not. Otherwise both had that flesh and blood which is common tous and to all humanity 
and in that sense Christ’s flesh was so literally human flesh that if any man actually ate it, he 
would eat common flesh, and there is no getting away from that conclusion. 

Aye, so literally is it common, though sinless flesh yet, that even after His resurrection He 
ate and drank withit. Forin Luke xxiv., 41, 42, 43, we read that ‘‘ He saztd unto them, Have 
ye hereany food? And they gavehima piece of a brotled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He 
tovk it, and did eat before them.”’ And Peterin Acts x., 40, 41, writes, ‘‘Him God raised up the 
third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, 
even to us, who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead.’ See, for further 
proofs that Christ's sp/ritual body is also a material body, the last subnote ‘‘a,”” and note 606, 


page 287 ἃ bove. 


908 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ee a πο gn 


together with His holy Apostles (652). We have been taught to 


a 


nearly that of Cyril. So the able George Stanley Faber in ‘‘the third edition, 


.ςςῤῤ τ-τ:ιττ͵Γ΄ή΄΄ΓΠἠ΄ττττ;ὯἋὋπ' --.------ς-ς-ς-ς--- ---- ὀ---- 


Let me add further against Kenrick’s perversion and falsification of Cyril’s doctrine in his 
Synodal Long Epistle above, 1, that on pages 250-260 above, Cyril shows that Christ’s Divinity 
is not on the Holy Table in the Eucharist, is not eaten by us at any time, and is not in us at 
any time. 

2, That on pages 260 to 276 Cyril teaches most plainly in passage after passage that Christ’s 
flesh and blood which were born of Mary are not in the Eucharist, are not eaten by us, and 
that if we could eat them it would be cannibalism, and could do us no good, and that the 
notion ofa literal ‘eating of a Man’s flesh” is an ‘‘ unholily bringing the minds of believers to 
notions of wickedness’’ (page 267 above) ; and ‘‘an unlearnedly doing away the force of the mys- 
Zery (page 268), etc. 

3, That God indwells the elements as means of grace to worthy recipients, (a). dzvinely, but 
yelatively only, that is, not by the Substance of His Divinity, but by the influences of His Holy 
Spirit, and (4). humanly also, but relatzvely only also, that is, by sending “ the power of life into 
the things which lie before us and”’ changing ‘them to the energy of His own flesh,” [not to 
its substance], “ 77: order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking.’ See page 264 
above, note, and compare pages 258, 259, 260, and 261. 

And, 4, Cyril’s doctrine on pages 276 and after, as well as above, is against all worship of 
any alleged veal presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity on the Holy Table, for he denies 
that it is there at all (pages 250-260 above, note); and against all worship of Christ’s humanity. 
or any part of it there, for he denies that it is there at all, and teaches that neither Christ’s 
separate whole humanity, nor any part of it, may be worshipped there or elsewhere, (pages 
260-278 above). 

Furthermore, the reader who will take the trouble to compare Kenrick’s quotation with 
the original of it as translated on pages 232-240 inclusive above in the text, and with the Greek, 
will see how inexact he is. 

So much on that alleged quotation from Cyril. Now let us turn to another, which is still 
more altered and falsified. 

On page 187 of the same Volume III. of his Theologza Dogmatica, Kenrick adduces the fol- 
lowing alleged passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria as from his Epistle to Coelosyrius, Chapter 
IV., on Faith (Ep. ad Coelosyrium, 6. IV., de Fide). It is adduced by Kenrick as one of 
several passages to prove his Proposition on page 185, id., that ‘‘ Jn the Sacrament of the Euch- 
avist there remains no substance of bread and wine, but there ts made a wonderful and singular 
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine 
into the blood, the species only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion ts most fitly 
called Transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.” 

Now let us turn from this Proposition to the passage which is alleged to be Cyril’s, and is 
quoted to prove it. Translated, this alleged testimony of Cyril as given in Kenrick’s Latin, 
Englished, is as follows : 

“Sp. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. ‘ That we may not be horrified at the flesh and blood put upon 
the sacred altars, God condescending to our weaknesses, causes to jiow into the things offered the 
force of life, CONVERTING THEM INTO THE REALITY OF HIS OWN FLESH, that the body of the 
Life, as a sort of seed, may be found in us.” 

Now let us see as to this passage. Kenrick gives it as we see, as from St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria’s Epistle to Coelosyrius, Chapter IV., on Faith, There is no Epistle of Cyril to Coelosy- 
rius, but there is one to Calosyrius. In tome 77 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, columns 375 and 
376, 1 find it numbered as Cyril’s Epzstle LX XXIII, but it is not given there among his 
Epistles; but a remark there tells us that ‘It is prefixed to the Book {of Cyril] Against the 
Anthropomorphites, although it has very little connection with 11. It then refers to tome 76 
of that Patrologia Graeca forit. There I find that Epistle in columns 1065-1078; but the pas- 
sage just given above from it by Kenrick is not there at all, nor is it in the work Agaznst the 
Anthropomorphites which follows it. Nor in Migne’s edition is the Epistle divided into Chap- 
ters, and hence there is no Chapter TV. αἴ 41 On Farth. And Chapter IV. in the work Against 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 309 


hold these doctrines by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and by 


revised and remoulded”’ of his Difficulties of Romanism, London, 1853, page 273, 


the Anthropomorphites is not on Fatth, but, as its heading is, ‘‘ Agaznst those who say, Are 
Angels also made in the image of God ?”’ See itin column 1084, tome 76 of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca. The only chapter in the work on the Eucharist is Chapter IV., which has not Ken- 
rick’s passage, and merely teaches that,‘ The Eucharvst should be celebrated tn the Catholic 
churches alone,’ as the heading reads. 

Kenrick’s alleged passage from Cyril seems to be an adulteration of part of that from 
Cyril’s Commentary on Luke, which is given in this work on page 264, note. Whether Ken- 
rick was guilty of the scoundrelism of adulterating it, or merely took it from some scamp who 
had, I know not. But I do know that he owed it to God and to His truth to examine it before 
he endeavored to seduce souls into soul-damning idolatry by it. Toshow the great difference 
between Cyril and the alleged Cyril I here parallelize the genuine quotation and the adulter- 
ated text, which we must remember is given by Kenrick as a quotation in quotation marks, 


THE GENUINE PASSAGE, from Cyril on 
Luke, as in the original Greek: 

‘That we may not be stupefied [with horror] 
by seeing flesh and blood lying before uson 
the Holy Tables of the Churches, God, conde- 


scending to our weaknesses, sends the power 


THE ADULTERATED PASSAGE as given by 
Kenrick in hts Latin translation: 

“That we may not be horrified at the flesh 
and blood put upon the sacred altars. God, 
condescending to our weaknesses, causes to 
flow into the things offered the force of life, 


converting them into the veality of Hisown 
flesh, that the body of the Life, as a sort of 
seed, may be found in us.’’ 


of life into the things which lie before us, and 
changes them to the energy of His own flesh, 
in order that we may have them for alife-giv- 


ing partaking, and that the body of the Life 
may be found in us as a life-giving seed.”’ 


Here in this short passage we find the following errors and changes: 

1. The title of the work from which Kenrick professes to take the passage is wrongly 
given, as though the adulterator would take the investigator off the right scent and put him 
on a false one where he would never find it, and so never discover the adulteration. 

2. Theadulterator puts' flesh and blood upon the sacred altars.’ Cyril denies that they 
on the Holy Tables of the Churches,’’ and does notin this passage use altars at all. 

3. Cyril, speaking of what he had just termed in this passage ἡ leavened bread and wine,’* 

mentions them here as‘ the things which lie before us;’’ see page 264 above. 

The corrupter omits the first expression, and changes the last to “" the things offered.’’ 

4. What is very important, Cyril, to show that the bread and wine are made vehicles of 
the quickening and life-giving influences of the Holy Spirit, writes that, ‘‘God, condescending 
to our weaknesses, sends the power of life into the things which lie before us, and changes 
them to the energy of His own flesh in order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking 
and that the body ofthe Life may be found in usas a life-giving seed,” that is that the quicken- 
ing influences of that Spirit by Which He relatively indwells us, may abide in us to sanctify us 
and to save us, and that His body of leavened bread, and His blood of wine may, so to speak, 
become part and parcel of our bodies. 

But this Cyrillian and spiritualsense would not do for our carnally minded Romish alterer, 
andso in order to unholily bring the minds of believers to notions of wickedness (page 267 
above), that is, to what St. Cyril calls cannibalism (page 262, 263 above’, from his very great lack 
of learning (page 270), he unlearnedly does away the force of the mystery (page 268), and in 
order to attain his ends of deceiving the guileless, he changes ‘‘ the energy of His own flesh” 
into ‘‘ the reality of Hisown flesh,’’ and omitsthe reference to spiritual partaking in the words, 
‘““in order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking.’’ This is quoting with a ven- 
geance for the alteration of energy into reality alters the whole sense. The context, as in the 
note on pages 263, 264 above, which is unfavorable to Transubstantiation the adulterator 


finds it convenient to omit altogether. 
I have given in parallel columns above the English rendering of Kenrick's adulterated 


are 


810 Act I. of Ephesus. 


all the God-inspired Scripture, and out of the true Confession (653) 


adduces the same passage well against Transubstantiation. So far he is right, 
but he evidently did not know that its doctrine is the Nestorian Consubstantia- 
tion and the Nestorian worship of Christ’s separate humanity, or of His separate 
flesh and blood, which St. Cyril and Ephesus condemned as being a part of the 
Nestorian Afostasy as the Canons of Ephesus style Nestorius’ heresy. And had 
the learned William Goode known that, he wonld not have tried, as he does, to 
make out that they are not Consubstantiation and Creature-Worship, for his 
effort was, so far, a failure. We must, therefore, so far as the witness of Theodo- 
ret is concerned, remember that he was a Nestorian heretic and creature-wor- 
shipper and never quote his Nestorian utterances as favoring Orthodoxy, or as 
other than condemned by the whole Church in its Third Council. We may, 
however, quote his anticipative witness against Transubstantiation, which did 
not then exist, and is also anticipatively condemned in that Synod. 


In brief, while in the great Anglican champions against Rome’s errors on 
the Eucharist we shall find still very much that is very valuable because it is in 
thorough accord with St. Cyril and Ephesus, nevertheless, with fuller light on 
Ephesus and its decisions than they had, we must in some few things improve 
by laying aside such expressions as Real Presence, which happily is mot in the 
Anglican formularies, and maintain all the Four Heads above of Cyril’s do¢trine. 
If we do, we shall agree in the main with the English Reformers whom the 
Holy Ghost guided in their struggle against Rome’s idolatry into a most remark- 
able degree of agreement with the Eucharistic teachings of St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria and the Decision of Ephesus for them. Most clear in the Long Epistle 
above is St. Cyril’s condemnation of Nestorius’ Cannibalism, and in Passage 18, 


Latin translation and my English of the Greek original. I here append the Latin of Kenrick 
and the Greek of Cyril side by side, that the scholar may see how vilely St. Cyril has been mis- 
represented by the falsifier. 


The Adulterated Passage of Cyril as 
given by Kenrick in his Latin trans- 
lation, on page 187, Vol. III. of his 
Theologia Dogmatica. 

S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. ‘Ne 
horreremus carnem et sanguinem ap- 
posita sacris altaribus, condescendens 
Deus nostris fragilitatibus, influit ob- 
latis vim vitae, CONVERTENS EA IN 
VERITATEM PROPRIAE CARNIS, ut cor- 
pus vitae, quasi qaoddam semen, inven- 
jatur in nobis.’’ I havehere given capi- 
tals only where Kenrick has. As has 
been said, he gives this passage on the 
same page 187, in note 3 as from Cyril’s 
“Ep. ad Coelosyrium, c. IV., de Fide.” 


The Genuine Passage from Cyril on 
Luke, asin the original Greek, column 
909, tome 72 of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca. 
σάρκα TE καὶ αἷμα προκείμενα βλέποντες EV 


“Iva γὰρ μὴ ἀποναρκήσωμεν, 


ἁγίαις τραπέζαις ἐκκλησιῶν, συγκαθιστάμενος 
ὁ Θεὸς ταῖς ἡμετετέραις ἀσθενείαις, ἐνίησι 
τοῖς προκειμένοις δύναμιν ζωῆς, καὶ μεθίστησιν 
αὐτὰ πρὸς ἐνέργειαν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σαρκός ἵνα εἰς 
μέθεξιν ζωοποιὸν ἔχωμεν αὐτὰ, καὶ οἷον 
σπέρμα ζωοποιὸν ἐν ἡμῖν εὑρεθῃ τὸ σῶμα τῆς 
ζωῆς, 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 811 


ue ΠΠἠ{ἠ “π΄ ὺυπτἁςι τ τρπρΔρ͵ρορ!;,ὙΟΙΡΡτΥΟῈὲῈ;τοτσουτ;ι7Λριρ:,Ροετο --τοὸΡοἠς Τσποτσσα 


of the blessed Fathers (654). And it behooves thy piety also, with- 


quoted from his writings, it is made one of the grounds for his condemnation, 
as is his charge against the Orthodox of eating Christ’s Divinity. Those two 
things, of themselves, condemn all Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation 
views, and the worship of Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist, for Cyril, as on 
pages 250-260 of this note, shows that It is not Substancely present in the Rite at 
all. And let us remember that part, if not all of Cyril’s four denials of Its real 
presence there were public before the Bishops at Ephesus decided, and that at 
least two of them must have been known to them, and in all probability guided 
their decision on the matter, as was the case with other utterances of his against 
Cannibalism, on pages 260-276. Christ hath therefore spoken through the whole 
Apostolate East and West, and the doctrine of Ephesus abides forever. 


I would add as to the Originators or Formulators of the aforesaid views, and 
the dates of their formulation as follows: 


The Dotrine of Ephesus was originated by Christ Himself, and set forth 
by the whole Church there in A. D. 431. 


As to the Eucharistic Heresies which oppose it, but nevertheless differ end- 
lessly among themselves, I would say that the authors of both the Transubstan- 
tiation views were image worshippers and creature invokers and Host worship- 
pers. 

So were the authors of all the Consubstantiation views, except Luther, who 
however, I judge, worshipped the Host, that is, if he continued to hold a view 
to that effect, asserted by him in his 116. ad. Wald, and quoted by Pusey on page 
53 of his work on The Doctrine of the Real Presence. 

The advocates of the Symbolic View, and those who pleaded for the Calvin- 
istic, were free from those sins of Image Worship, Host Worship and other Crea- 
ture-Worship. 

The dates of the Formulation of the Real Presence views are as follows: 


View. When Formulated. By Whom. 


The Roman Transubstantiation. A. D. 1215. The Fourth Lateran 
Synod, which was 
merely Western and 
local. 


The Greek Transubstantiation. A. Ὁ. 1643. Greek Patriarchs and the 
Russian (page 126, Part 
I of Kimmel’s J/onu- 
menta Fidet Eccl. Ort- 
ent.); and by the Synod 
of Jerusalem, A. D. 1672 
(Kimmel, id., Part 1, 
pages 458-462); both 
which were merely 
Eastern and local. 


912 Act I. of Ephesus. 


out any guile, to agree with all these things (655). And we have 


The Nestorian Consubstantiation. About A. D. 430. By Nestorius and his dis- 


ciple Theodoret. 
Luther’s Consubstantiation. After A. Ὁ. 1517. By Luther and some 
Lutherans. 
Keble’s Consubstantiation. After A. Ὁ. 1852. By Denison (who was con- 


demned for it by the 
Archbishop of Canter- 
bury in A. D. 1856 or 
1857), by Keble, Pusey, 
and by Bishop Forbes 
of Brechin, who was 
condemned for it by the 
Scotch Bishopsin A. D. 
1858. 
Real Absence views, which approach much nearer to Cyril’s teaching on 
the Eucharist: 


View. When Formulated. By Whom. 
Zwingli’s Symbolic. After A. Ὁ. 1517. By Zwingli and others. 
Calvin’s Symbolic and Energy view. After A. D. 1517. By Calvin and others. 


We see then that one Real Presence view and the idolatry of worshipping 
the Host came in as early as the Fifth Century. And when we first find it in 
Theodoret clearly as above quoted, it seems to have been as firmly seated in 
then currupt Syria as the other Nestorian heresies of denial of the Incarnation, 
and tne worship of Christ’s separate humanity were. They began with Diodore 
of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the heretics, and so possibly did Theo- 
doret’s heresy on the Eucharist, though it does not appear till the Fifth Cen- 
tury. Ambrose and Augustine also are quoted by Keble for that Nestorian 
idolatry, but I am not as yet convinced that the passages quoted from them are 
genuine. Ifthey are, we must class them as so far Nestorian against St. Cyril 
and Ephesus, and therefore as so far condemned and as heretics. If other pas- 
sages quoted from them be genuine, they were invokers, that is, worshippers οὗ. 
creatures, and so were heretics on that also, and apostates from Christ to 
Creature-Worship, and condemned by Cyril and by Ephesus. But we must 
always follow Ephesus and anathematize every individual writer who opposes 
it by his private or local opinions. They can not bind the Church—Ephesus 
does. 

And always after Theodoret’s time, a tendency to creature-worship in other 
matters was accompanied by a tendency to Real Presence heresies and to the 
Worship of the alleged Host; whereas a tendency to worship God alone, and to 
abominate all idolatry, has been accompanied generally by a tendency to reject 
all Real Presence errors and Host worship, and to draw near to the dodtrines on 
the Lord’s Supper enunciated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and approved by the 


/ 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 313 


subjoined to this, our epistle, those things which it is necessary that 
thy piety shall anathematize.’’ [They are as follows]: 


Third Ecumenical Council; for the paganizer naturally takes to the paganizing 
of the Eucharist as the Orthodox as naturally takes tothe sound decisions on it 
enunciated by the whole Church at Ephesus, A. D. 431. This is the more 
remarkable because, so far as appears, the English Reformers and Restorers 
(now enjoying their reward in Heaven with the Reformers and Restorers, Elijah, 
Elisha, Josiah, and Hezekiah), and the other Reformers of the Sixteenth Cen- 
tury, were not aware of the precise nature of the Eucharistic controversy be- 
tween Cyril and Nestorius, nor of the Decision of Ephesus on it. 

I had hoped to contrast the impious and absurd consequences of Real Pres- 
ence views with the pious and rational consequences of the Orthodox do¢trine 
of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, but must leave that for the Dissertation on the 
Eucharist in this Set, or refer to some of them on Passage 18 of Nestorius, 
quoted in the above Act I. of Ephesus further on. See Note E, page 517. 

(607), page 241. Greek, ὑποστάσεσι; that is, ‘‘ Bezngs,”’ or ‘‘ Hypostases.’’ 

(608), page 242. Greek, προσώποις. 

(609), page 245. Or, ‘‘ befits God.”’ 

(610), page 246. John xiv., 9. 

(611), page 246. John x., 30. 

(612), page 247. John x., 30; John xvit., 11; 21, 22, 23. 

(612); pase'247- EL Cor. iv., 4; Col; 1.7 τῷ; Heb: #3, Greek. 

(614), page 248. John viili., 40. 

(605), pase 253. Philip. 11, 7. 

(616), page 254. Greek, ‘Evi τοιγαροῦν προσώπῳ τὰς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις πάσας 
ἀναθετέον φωνὰς, ὑποστάσει μιᾷ τῇ τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένῃ. Κύριος γὰρ εἷς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, 
κατὰ τὰς Τραφάς. Τί 15 clear from this that Cyril uses Person and Subsistence in 
this passage for God the Word alone, and for nothing but his Divine and 
Eternal Substance, not at all for the Man whom He put on. For the Person 
and Subsistence here mentioned is He Who has infleshed Himself in the flesh 
put on; that is the Person and Subsistence Who has put on flesh, is the Divine 
and Eternal Word. And of course the Eternal Word was a perfect Person, that 
is Subsistence, before He put on flesh. 

(617), page 254. I. Cor. viii., 6. 

(618), page 255. Or, ‘‘ should be called,’ καλοῖτο. 

(619), page 255. Heb. iii, 1. The Greek word ἀρχιερεὺς, here used, 
should be rendered, as it means chief herv, that is, chief sacreder, that is, 
chief performer of sacred acts, that is, Chief Priest. 

(620), page 255—Greek, ἱερουργῶν, that is ‘‘ performing the sacred act 


of,’’ etc. 
(621), page 256—Note 28, page 29 of P. E. Pusey’s ‘‘ Three Epistles of S. 
Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria,’ informs us that the Greek for the words, 


914 Act I. of Ephesus. 


i a ee 

[THE TWELVE CHAPTERS, THAT Is, THE TWELVE ANATHE- 
MAS]: 
I. If any one does not acknowledge that the Immanuel (656) 


ee π--ι-- - -- ----- πο 


“44 moreover to the Holy Spirit also,’ are omitted in the Version of 
[Marius] Mercator, but are found in Greek Codexes. I quote his utterance 
there: ‘‘ Verba καὶ μὴν καὶ εἰς TO ἅγιον πνεῦμα Mercatoris versione forte non sine 
ratione omissa, exhibent codices Graeci nostri et ed. Comm. et (ut videtur) 
Versio Latina in codice Cassinensi.”’ 

. Origen in his work against Celsus speaks of the Christians of his time as 
sometimes offering their prayers to the Son the Mediator, and asking Him to 
‘present them to the Father. I have quoted passages on this point from it 
elsewhere in this work. See below on Anathema X. 


The above Greek may, however, be rendered, “ And moreover ¢o the Holy 
Spirit also.” It may also be rendered as in the text, “ And moreover 
[offered by us] 77 the Holy Spirit also,” and may then mean that we offer to the 
Father through the Son, iz the Holy Spirit, that is, by Its aid. Robinson in his 
Greek and English Lexicon of the New Te estament, under εἰς, 4, Shows that 
εἰς with the accusative is often used where we expect to find ἐν with the dative. 
The first rendering might make the Son a Mediator between the Holy Ghost 
and Man, which is perhaps the reason why Pusey says in the Latin in this note 
above that ‘“‘The words, ‘42d moreover to’ (as he may have taken them) ‘the 
Holy Ghost also,’ are omitted in the [Latin] translation of Mercator, perhaps 
not without reason.’”’? He seems to deem it a confounding the office-work of the 


three Persons of the Trinity, on the ground that the Father sits on the throne, 
that the Son alone of allin heaven intercedes for us (I. Tim. ii., 5; Heb. vii., 
25; Heb. ix., 24; Rom. viil., 34; and I. John ii., 1, 2), whereas the Holy Ghost, 
sent as His Vicar by the Son after His ascension to heaven again, is on earth to 
strengthen us spiritually and physically and to help us to pray (John Riv, 10. 
17, 18, 26; John xv., 26, and John xvi., 7-16; Rom. viii., 26; and Eph. vi., 18, 
where we read of a Christian’s praying on earth always with all prayer and 
supplication in the Spirit, and watching in It [or, for It] (ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ εἰς αὐτό) 
with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.’? On Romans viil., 26, 
see Whitby in his Commentary, who makes Intercession in heaven for men pre- 
rogative to the Son, and Rom. viii,, 26, to refer to the Spirit’s help given to us 
onearth. Perhaps the αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγ χάνει there may be best rendered, 
“The Spirit Itself pleads in us for us with unutterable groanings,’’ which 
would make the sense clear for the idea that the Spirit’s work is on earth, and 
in our hearts, and by miracles now as of old (I. Cor. xii., 10, 11), and tor tie 
dotrine that all intercession for men in heaven is prerogative to the Son. The 
cry of the martyrs under the altar in heaven for vengeance on their murderers 
(Rev. vi., 9-12), does not make against the dodtrine that Christ is the only 
Intercessor in Heaven for us which follows from the fact that He is the only 
Mediator (I. Tim. ii., 5), for that cry is not a plea for mercy, but a petition for 
vengeance; and moreover, it did not succeed in getting instant punishment on 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 315 
is really God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin was Bringer-Forth- 


‘those murderers, nor will it till Christ shall comein judgment. As the High 
Priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies to intercede for Israel, sono one can 
intercedein heaven, the Holy of Holies above, for the Israel of the New and Bet- 
ter Covenant, except our Great High Priest (Heb. ix.; Exod. xxx., 10; Levit. 
yvi., 17 and the whole chapter). It is prerogative to God the Son, as the Uni- 
versal Church teaches in the Xth Anathema of Cyril of Alexandria, which was 
approved by the Third Ecumenical Council with the above Epistle, of which it 
forms part. See below where that Anathema is explained against the idea of a 
mere Man being our Intercessor. 


A private notion of some Fathers, not that we should invoke the Saints, but, 
nevertheless, that after their deaths they pray for us is false, therefore, and con- 
demned; and so is the error that we may go further and pray to the Father or to 
the Son to hear their prayers for us, an evil custom which at some later time 
gained admission to one or more Eastern Liturgies, for it is in effect dishonoring 
to the all-sufficiency of Christ’s intercession on high (Heb. vii., 25); and presup- 
poses the lie that mere creatures can share it. We must not be surprised at 
finding in Eastern and in Western Liturgies invocations of creatures, for those 
liturgies are corrupt, and the oldest manuscripts of them which have reached us 
belong to the corrupt middle ages. Onthat point Warren, in his article Sgn ofthe 
Cross, page 1897, outer column, of Smith and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Chris- 
tian Antiquities, remarks, 


“Most of the ritual writers and most missals and manuals, at allevents in 
their present form, are of a later date than the 9th century.’’ No copy of any 
liturgy with such invocations in it belongs to the early Church. Much less does 
any copy of any liturgy which has direct invocation of saints in it. 


As to still another non-primitive custom, that of invoking saints themselves 
directly, it is in effect anathematized in Cyril’s Anathema VIII, and in An- 
athema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod and in its Definition, for if it be 
what that Definition terms ¢he crime of worshipping a Man, to bow to the sepa- 
rate humanity of God the Word, which is the highest and best of all mere 
creatures, it is a fortiori Man- Worship to give the act of prayer, avery common, 
aye, the most common act of religious service, to any lesser creature. For by 
Christ’s own blessed law in Matt. iv., 10, all acts of religious service are prerog- 


ative to God alone. 


Besides, there is a glory in the Sole Mediator which is not in a mere creature, 
for He is the omniscient God to hear millions of prayers offered to him at the 
same moment, and to know the hearts and motives and wants of His invokers, 
and to judge of the wisdom or folly of their petitions, and to do his work of 
intercession wisely and perfectly accordingly; and at the same time He is Man 
to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. iv., 15), and to sympath- 
ize with us. And no creature can have His Divine and infinite attributes, and 
therefore no creature can be such an intercessor as we need. 


316 Ac I, of Ephésus. 


of God (657) for she brought forth in a fleshly way the Word, Who 


I would add that Nestorius, as quoted by St. Cyril in Section 2, Book IV. of 
his Five-Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, asserts in effect 
that his mere human Christ ‘‘chose out’’ the apostles, that ‘‘ the Father sanctt- 
fied”’ them, and ‘‘the Spirit made them orators.”’ See the context fully. 

But Cyril, jealous for the preeminence of the Logos as God in that Man, 
denies that any creature, even that perfect Man, may do any work prerogative to 
God and contends that whatever was done by Christ was done ‘‘ by the Father, 
through the Son, by the Spirit, ἕκαστα τῶν δρωμένων πεπράχθαι διαβεβαιούμενος παρὰ 
Πατρὸς δι Υἱοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι. This, of course, makes against the giving of any 
part of the Intercessory, that is, Mediatorial work of Christ in heaven to the 
Virgin Mary or any other creature. For Christ’s Intercessory work in heaven 15 
as much prerogative to the Logos in heaven as His sacrifice on Calvary was, and 
is prerogative to Him. See on such points Cyril’s XII Anathemas at the end of 
this Epistle, and especially Anathemas VIII., X. and XI. These facts are too 
much forgotten. Those Anathemas, with all the above Kpistle, being approved 
by the Third Council, are part of the infallible doGtrine of the Universal Church, 
and it is heresy to contradict them. 

(622), page 258. Greek, ἱερωσύνης. 

(623), page 258. That is the Word. Compare Anathema X. below in this. 
same Letter, and Cyril’s -zve Books Against Nestorius. 

(624), page 259. Greek, εὐωδίας, literally, ‘‘a pleasant smell,” or “an agree- 
able smell.’’ Τί 15 quoted from Philip. iv., 18. 

(625), page 261. Heb. x., 5-8. TheGreek of verse 6 is ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ rept 
ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἠυδόκησας. That is the lection of Tischendorf in his Greek Mew 
Testament, Editio O€tava Critica Major. The Latin Vulgate as in Lee’s 
Biblia Sacra Polyglotta renders it, Holocautomata pro peccato non tibi placuerunt. 
But the German, Italian and French versions there given agree with the English. 
The Greek admits either rendering. 

(626), page 263. Rom. 11]., 23. 

(627), page 264. Greek, Kai κατηῤῥώστησεν ἡ ἀνθρώπου φύσις τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 
The Latin translation of Marius Mercator, page 31 in P. E. Pusey’s Three Epistles 
of S. Cyril, is “εἴ peccatis aegrotavit humana natura.’’ 

(628), page 264. That is, God the Word. 

(629), page 265. Rom. iii., 23. 

(630), page 265. The Word, to Whom Cyril ascribes the sufferings, etc., of 
the Man put on by Him. 

(631), page 268. John xvi., 14. 

(632), page 269. ‘‘ Himself,’’? here means God the Word. 

(633), page 270. That is, the Divine and Eternal Word. 

(634), page 272. That is, ‘‘z2 /ts own Substance,’ that is, “77: its own Hy- 
postasis,’’ that is, ‘‘in [ts own Person,’ Greek, ἐν ὑποστάσει * * * ἰδικῇ, 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 317 


had come out of God and been made flesh (658), let him be anath- 
ema (659). 


(635), page 274. Greek, Χριστός, that is Anointed, an appellation which, 
though it refers to the Man put on by the Word, is nevertheless applied, as all 
the expressions relating to that Man are, to the Word, the dominant and infi- 
nitely Superior Nature in the Son. That isin accordance with the dodtrine of 
Economic Appropriation. 

He calls Himself ‘‘ the Truth ’’ in John xiv., 6. 

(636), page 274. See the last note above. 

(637), page 275. Acts ii, 33: Eph. iv:, 8: 

(638), page 276. John xv., 26. Cyril’s Greek here is, καὶ προχεῖται παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ Kai Πατρός. Pusey has τοῦ before Θεοῦ. 

The Greek, literally translated, is as follows: ‘‘ And /¢ [the Spirit] zs poured 
Jorth from Him [God the Word] as [It is] certainly out of the God and Father.’ 
P. E. Pusey, with the Romanizing leaning common to him and his father, and 
with a desire seemingly to please Rome by favoring her doctrine of the Double 
Procession of the Spirit, renders the above place, ‘‘ dud He proceedeth from 
Him, just as from God the Father,’ P. E. Pusey’s ‘‘ Three Epistles of S. 
Cyril,’”’ page 67. But the Greek there is not ἐκπορεύεται, proceedeth, that is, goeth 
out, as in John xv., 26, which many think refers to the coming of the Spirit out 
of the Father before the creation to act as the agent of God the Word in making 
the worlds (Genesis i., 2; Psalm xxxiii., 6; compare Isaiah xl., 12, 13, 14, and II. 
Peter iii., 5). God the Father is mentioned as pouring out His Spirit in time on 
men long centuries after It had first gone out of the Father; as, for instance, in 
the Old Testament period, in Isaiah xliv., 3; Joel ii., 28, 29; compare Peter’s 
application of that passage in Acts i1., 4, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39; Zech. xii., 10; Isaiah 
XXxXil.. 15; and Ezek., xxxix., 29. Sointhe New Testament, Christ predicted 
that the Father would send the Holy Ghost in His name (John xiv., 26); andthe 
Redeemer explained this more fully when He promised His Apostles to ‘“‘ send 
unto’ them ‘‘ from the Father the Spirit of Truth which goeth out of the 
Father,’ ὁΠαράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός͵ τὸ ΤΠνεῦμα τῆς ᾿Αληθείας ὃ παρὰ 
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται (John xv., 26). 

The Father is the sole source of Divinity, the Spirit comes out of Him, and 
is sent in time by the Son, in the Gospel Dispensation; compare John xvi., 7 
and Acts ii., 33, to the same effect as to the sending from the Father by the Son 
intime. And Christ’s promise to send the Spirit and to exdue them “zwz¢h 
power from on high” (Luke xxiv., 49) was fulfilled at Pentecost when He shed 
forth the Spirit for the first time under the New Testament and Covenant, after 
He had sealed it by His blood (Heb. ix., 15, 16 and 17; Aé¢ts ii., 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 
33), when the Spirit, promised by the Father in Joel under the Old Testament 
was, in fact, sent from the Father by God the Son acting as His agent; and the 
Holy Ghost thus sent, then and after wrought all the miracles (I. Cor. xii., 1-13). 
This is easily explained by Cyril’s dictum, which is based on a careful examina- 
tion of Scripture, that whatsoever the Father does He does through the Son by 


918 Act I. of Ephesus. 


pie) ls ee 

II. Ifany one does not acknowledge that the Word [who came] 
UO 00 NL a ee SS re 
the Spirit. The pouring out of the Spirit by the Father, if we supply, as I have 
in the text, ‘‘ poured forth,” may be taken as referring to what occurred under 
the Old Testament and under the New, and perhaps also to Its going out of the 
Father before the worlds. If we omit poured forth, and supply as I have “" 72 
is,’’ the meaning may be made a little different, and may refer to Its coming 
out of the Father before all the worlds to make them. 


To conclude: the pouring out by the Son was done after His ascension: the 
coming of the Spirit out of the Father was before the worlds were made and to 
make them. See Tertullian’s testimony on that matter in the Dissertation on 
Eternal Birth to be issued hereafter, if God will. As Tertullian, like all the 
Ante-Nicene Christian writers, outside of the Alexandrian School, rejects the 
notion of the Eternal birth of God the Word out of the Father, so he rejects the 
idea of the Eternal Procession of the Spirit out of the Father, and the doctrine 
of the Double Procession. 

(639), page 281. John xvi. 14. ‘‘He shall receive” refers to the Holy 
Spirit. 

(640), page 285. Cyril here ends his treatment of the doctrine of God the 
Word’s use of the Holy Spirit’s office work, which is summed up in his Anath- 
ema IX. below. On the office work of the Spirit see I. Cor. xii., where the 
Apostle explains it at length. What next follows is a setting forth of the 
Bringer-Forth of God do&trine, which is summed up in Anathema I. below. On 
page 282 of the text above, on the expression “* by partaking,’ ὡς ἐκ μετοχῆς, 
compare note 563, page 218 above, on the similar expression, ὡς κατὰ μέθεξιν 
σχετικήν, ‘as by relative participation,” or “‘as by relative partaking,” and note 
156, pages 61-69, and especially pages 64, 65, where I. Cor., vi. 17 is quoted 
again. Seealso page 66. Those notes, however, speak specially of the Nes- 
torian errors on the Incarnation and their sequences. 


The meaning in the text above seems to be that the Holy Spirit does not 
derive His wisdom and power from the Logos, but that they inhere in His 
Divine and Eternal Nature as Very God, the Coeternal and Consubstantial 
Spirit of the Father. 

(641), page 287 above. Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν. That union of God the Word’s 
Divine and Eternal Substance to the Man whom He put on in Mary’s womb, is 
sometimes called the Personal Union, because the Person of God the Word put 
on that Man, and since then we speak of One Person and Two Natures. Before 
the Word took flesh He was One Person and is still, but in flesh. Itis 
called also the Hypostatic Union, because the Eternal Substance (ὑπόστασις) 
of the Logos put on that Man in Mary’s womb and came into this world in him 
out of her. And therefore, to guard the truth of the Incarnation, she is spoken 
of not as ‘‘ Mother of God”? (ἡ Μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ), but as ‘‘ Bringer-Forth of God”? 
(Θεοτόκος). That expression is designed also to guard against Man-Worship 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία) by teaching, as Cyril does, that the Magi worshipped not a mere 
human babe (Matt. ii., 11), but the Emmanuel, which the Holy Ghost explains 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 319 


out of God the Father has been united by His Substance (660) to flesh, 


in Matt. i., 23, to mean ‘‘ God with us,’ that is God the Word with us. ‘The 
Nestorian interpretation made their act mere worship of a creature, con- 
trary to Christ’s immutable and infallible law in Matt. iv., το, Thou shalt bow to 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. | Hence Nestorius, deeming 
that God was not born out of the Virgin (Cyril of Alexandria’s Five-Book Con- 
tradittion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book 1., Section 1., page 11 of the 
Oxford English translation), denied that “ 716 Logos * * * (asa child) 
was wrapped in swaddling clothes,’ and exclaimed, ‘‘ Never will I call a child, 
two or three months old, God,’ (See Hefele’s History of the Church Councils, 
English translation, Vol. 11Π1., pages 15 and 44). The inevitable outcome of his 
position, therefore, was mere creature-worship on the part of the Wise Men from 
the East, in Matt. ii. 2. Hefele, however, being a Romanist, and therefore a 
creature-worshipper, does not always state the full truth as to the doctrine of 
St. Cyril and the Third Synod against that sin. 

(642), page 288. Greek, Θεοτόκος, 

(643) page 291. 70{{Π|1: 1,2, 3,145 Heb: i., 2. 

(644), page 294. See note 641 above. 

(645), page 296. Greek, διὰ τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν. 

(646), page 297. Heb. i., 2; Galat. iv., 4; Eph. i., Io. 

(647), page 301. Gen. 111., 19. 

(648), page 301. II. Tim.i,, Io. 

(649), page 302. Gen. iii., 16. 

(650), page 305. Isaiah, xxv., 8. Cyril quotes the Septuagint, the common 
translation in his language. It differs slightly from the English. According to 
the Septuagint here, there seems to be a contrast intended between the ravages 
of death on the one hand, and the mercy of God on the other in wiping away 
tears andin comforting. The meaning would be that though men die, yet death’s 
ravages shall forever cease and joy take the place of tears in the case of every 
Christian. The sense is, therefore, not widely different from our Common 
English Version. Compare Hosea xiii., 14; I. Cor. xv., 54, where the aforesaid 
passage of Isaiah is referred to; Heb. ii., 14, 15, and Rev. xx., 14. 


(651), page 306. Greek, οἰκονομικῶς, 
(652), page 308. John ii., 1-12. 
(653), page 310. Or, ‘‘ by the true Confession.”’ 


(654), page 311. The Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod is meant, but 
perhaps that and the whole do¢trine of the Fathers on Christ are included. 
Cyril, it will be remembered, gives the Creed of the 318 in full above, and 
reasons against Nestorianism from its Orthodox sense. 


(655), page 312. Or, according to P. E. Pusey’s Greek text, “‘ dud ΤῈ 
behooves thy piety to co-pratise all these things and to agree to them without any 


gute.” 


920 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Ἐς τότ τ - Ὁ - er 
and that He is One Anointed (661) within His own flesh (662), that 


eee 

(656), page 314. Greek, τὸν ᾿Εμμανουήλ, that is, asthe Emmanuel means, the 
“God with us,” Matt. i., 23, that is, God the Word. See on Emmanuel, page 
291, above, subnote ‘‘a.’’ 

(657), page 316. Greek, Θεοτόκον. On this expression and Anathema I. see 
the text above, pages 286-313, and the notes there. Compare also in St. Cyril’s 
Shorter Epistle, text above, pages 60-112, and the notes there, and the Epistle 
of Nestorius to Cyril, pages 155-166, and the Counter Anathema I. among the 
XII. which are ascribed to Nestorius. They are to be found on pages 242-245 
of the second edition of Hahn’s Bzbliothek der Symbole, Breslau, 1877. 


As I have already prepared much matter on St. Cyril’s Ecumenically 
approved XII. Anathemas, which is altogether too voluminous to quote here, I 
must defer it to a separate volume or volumes. Those Anathemas form a 
most important and most interesting theme. I will quote below a set of Counter 
Anathemas ascribed to Nestorius. On them Hefele, in his Hzstory of the 
Church Councils, Vol. III., page 34, English translation, remarks: 


‘““Nestorius published, on his part, twelve anathematisms, representing 
Cyril as a heretic. These have been preserved for us only by the Western lay- 
man, Marius Mercator, who took a great interest in both the Pelagian and the 
Nestorian controversies, on the Orthodox side, and employed his residence for 
the transaction of business in Constantinople, in translating the sermons and 
writings of Nestorius into Latin, so as to make them more accessible to the 
Westerns.”? Hefele adds that each number of these Counter Anathematisms 
corresponds with the same number of Cyril’s. They are found in Latin only. 
See them in the second edition of Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, pages 242- 
245, whence I translate them. 


I confess that, inasmuch as they are deemed to be before the Council, and as 
I find no mention of them in the Council, I have been inclined to have my 
doubts as to Nestorius being their author. And, furthermore, if Marius Mercator 
translated them into Latin, the question occurs, Were they a work of some other 
Nestorian or not? I reserve these matters for further investigation, and hope to 
give the results in time. The Latin text seems almost hopelessly corrupt. I 
give below the first of them. I have sometimes preferred the readings in Hahn’s 
notes to those in his text. 


Nestorius’ Counter Anathema I: 

“Tf any says that He who is Emmanuel is God the Word, and not rather 
God with us [Matt. i., 23], that is, that He [God the Word] dwelt in that nature 
which is like ours, inasmuch as He was united to our Zump |[Rom. xi., 16] which 
He took from the Virgin Mary, and names the Holy Virgin, Mother of God the 
Word, and not rather of Him who is Emmanuel, and [asserts] that God the 
Word Himself was turned into flesh, which He took for the showing of His own 
Deity, that He might be found in fashion as a Man [Philip ii., 8], let him be 


anathema.’’ 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 321 


is, that the same One is both God and Man together, let him be 
anathema (663). 


Mother of God the Word 1 suppose to have been Θεοτόκος, Bringer-Forth of 
God, in the Greek. Emmanuel, that is, God with us, in Nestorius’ sense leaves 
Christ a mere human being, indwelt, as the Prophets and Apostles were, not by 
the Substance of God the Word, but by the zmfluences of His Spirit only. 


(658), page 317. Johni., 14. 

(659), page 317. This language is perfe@tly Scriptural. The Greek is 
ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, and is rendered in Galatians i., 8, 9, by ‘let him be accursed,” as it 
really means; and is there a proclaiming anticipatively by the inspired Apostle, 
Paul, of God’s curse on Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Pope Honorius, 
and on every other heretic who has been condemned by any of the Six Holy- 
Ghost-led Councils of the Whole Church, West and East. And Paul, in order 
to warn men against unbelief and heresy, not in hatred but in love, writes again 
by the Holy Ghost, in I. Cor. xvi., 22, ‘‘Zf any one love not the Lord Jesus 
Anointed, let him be anathema” [that is ‘‘let him be accursed’’] ‘‘Maran-atha,”’ 
[that is, “216 Lord cometh’’]. The Universal Church, guided by the Holy 
Ghost according to Christ’s promises, has always used the anathema rightly and 
in love to warn men of the doom of the errorist who resists the just decisions of 
the God-appointed and Holy-Spirit-guided Supreme Court of Sound Christen- 
dom, the Ecumenical Synod of Christ’s God-alone-invoking Orthodox Bishops, 
for no creature-invoker, host-worshipper, or image-worshipper may sit in it. 


And if any man would see how often God has cursed sinners to warn them, 
let him look in any Concordance under curse, etc. Take, for instance, Deut.xi., 29; 
and Deut. xxviii., 15-68 inclusive. We are not to confound God’s cursing and the 
Church’s to warn and save, with profane and unauthorized cursing by wicked 
men, in mere malice and hatred and revengefulness. This last is condemned in 
God’s Word in the Old Testament and in the New, for example in Exod. xxi., 
17; Ps. x., 7; and Rom. xii., 14. The ignorant and foolish sometimes wickedly 
make both kinds of cursing, that of God and of the Church on the one hand, 
and that of wicked men on the other, the same. 

Still worse than common profane cursing are the anathemas uttered by 
mere idolatrous conventicles, like the God-cursed conventicle of Nicaea in A. 
D. 787 (to which be anathema, in accordance with Galatians i., 8, 9, where the 
Holy Ghost, by Paul, antecedently curses that and every other conventicle of 
idolatrizing corrupters), for it profanely tried to apply God’s anathema to all 
who, believing that 20 zdolater shall inherit the kingdom of God (I. Cor. vi., 9, 
το; Galat. v., 19-22, and Rev. xxi., 8), and that no creature may be invoked 
(Matt. iv., 10. compare Colos, ii., 18: Rom. i., 25, 26; Isaiah xlv., 20-25; Psalm 
Ixy., 2; Deut. xxxii., 21 and after; Isaiah xlii., 8; and Psalm lxxxi., 9; the last 
two texts, with Matt. iv., Io, are Cyril’s favorite texts against the Nestorians’ 
worship of Christ’s humanity; see his works passim), refused to commit the 
sins of image worship and of creature worship, for praying and bowing are cer- 
tainly represented all through the Scriptures as acts of religious service, and 


922 Act I, of Ephésus. 
Opes τος πρλσ Nis EI RD Eee a tet lo Sse ta a  ο. 
Ill. If any one separates the [two] Substances (664) in the one 
J VOSA Be Ritatiot abet Mean Daud bs Lee alien hse hs peat noueead IVE Lie ale ee th oe ςςς  -----.-- 
therefore as prerogative to God alone. ΤῸ give them or any other act of relig- 
ious service, be it incense, kissing, prostration or any other to any creature 
departed, or to any image, painted or graven, is always represented in Holy 
Writ as bringing down His burning wrath on those guilty of such sins. And 
how that terrific vengeance came down on Tarasius and Theodore of the Studium. 
in their deaths is told us by their own friends and fellow-idolaters, remarkably 
enough. 

So we say anathema to the merely local Western Fourth Lateran Council 
of A. D. 1215, miscalled Ecumenical, because it set forth the heresy of Transub- 
stantiation, contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s doctrine vindicated against the 
cannibal heresy of Nestorius by the Holy-Ghost-led Third Ecumenical Council. 
So we anathematize the idolatrous merely local Western Conventicle of Trent in 
the sixteenth century, because it approved all the idolatrous and creature worship- 
ping decisions of all the merely local Western or Eastern Synods which coutra- 
di& the God-inspired and infallible decisions of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 
against those soul-damniug iniquities. For the Holy Ghost never approves a 
lie. He approves the truth once for all in those Great Councils, led and guided 
by Him, according to Christ’s promise, made not to one Apostle only, like 
Peter, but to the Universal Apostolate (Matt. xxviii., 19, 20, John xiv., 16, 17, 
and xvi., 13 and I. Tim. iii., 15), and any decision against anything decided in 
any of the Six is by that fact null and void and anathematized, whether it be against 
any of them on the Trinity, on the Divinity of Christ, on His Person and Wor- 
ship, on the Two Natures of His. on the Eucharist, in condemning Honorius of 
Rome as a heretic, on thesins of Creature-Worship, or on anything else on which 
the Holy Ghost has decided in the VI Councils. They have the ground, and 
nothing has ever succeeded in dispossessing them, aud nothing ever can. Christ 
and the Holy Ghost are with them, and everything that opposes then is against 
Him andIt. Even in such matters as Image-Worship, and Transubstantiation, 
opposed to them, and nevertheless accepted against them by some local Council 
of the East or West, misnamed Ecumenical, by the Greeks and the Latins, or by 
one of them, the difference between these errorists is so great that they call 
each other idolaters and lost. For God does not will that men shail ever agree 
except on the basis of His infallible truth in the Six God-led and thoroughly 
Scriptural Councils of His One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, 


(660), page 319. Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν. This expression is intended to 
crush the Nestorian assertion that the Subsistence, that is Substance, and real 
Person of God the Word was not in the Man put on; the result of which Nestor- 
ianism is that all worship done to Christ is done to a mere man, and hence is 
mere Man-Service, that is, mere Creature-Service, that is, a return to the chiet 
paganerror, The Greek word ὑπόστασιν, has both the meaning of Subsistence and 
Substance, and also Person, and hence is of somewhat wider significance than 
πρόσωπον, Person, though they are often used as synonymous. On page 254 
above, St. Cyril speaks of but ‘‘One Person, ὃ * * Oneinfleshed Flypostasis” 
of the Word,” to Whom “‘ all the expressions in the Gospels are to be ascriber,?”” 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 323 


Anointed after the union, and conjoins them in a conjunétion alone of 


Greek, ἑνὶ τοιγαροῦν Mpoodry τὰς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις πάσας ἀναθετέον φωνὰς, Ὕποστάσει: 
μιᾷ τῇ τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένῃ. Κύριος γὰρ εἷς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, κατὰ τὰς Τραφάς. Here, 
evidently, the Person and Substance of the Word are considered to be the whole: 
Person of the Logos, His Humanity being His mere tabernacle and wrapping.. 
See notes 616 and 617. 

(661), page 320. Greek, ἔνα * * * Χριστόν. 

(662), page 320. Greek, μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, which may be rendered, either 
as above in the text, or ‘‘ with His own flesh.’’ Compare note 660 above, and 
Cyril’s use of Person there. 

(663), page 321. On Anathema II., see Cyril’s Longer Epistle above, pages 
214-221, his Shorter Epistle, pages 60-80, and the Epistle of Nestorius to Cyril, 
pages 155-166 above, and the Nestorian Counter Anathema II. Τί is as follows: 


Nestorius’ Counter Anathema II; ‘‘Tf any one in that [merely external] 
conjunction of God the Word which was made to flesh, asserts that a change of 
the Divine Essence from place to place has been made, and that flesh is capable 
of containing His Divine Nature, and that It was united to flesh in birth; or, 
again, infinitely and uncircumscribedly coextends flesh to the Divine Nature to 
contain God, and says that the very same nature is both God and Man, let him 
be ancthema.”’ 


Here, by covertly ascribing old heresies to Cyril, such as Apollinarianism 
and Sabellianism, the Nestorian anathematizer tries to bring Cyril’s belief into 
disrepute. But Cyril as above, pages 250-294, shows that even in the Eucharist 
where the above reproach would apply, if anywhere, he did not ‘‘zxfinitely and 
uncircumscribedly coextend flesh to the Divine Nature,’’ and there and else-- 
where makes it clear that he did not believe in a mixing of the Two Natures 
into One, and that a Third impossible Nature compounded of Divinity and. 
humanity. But he did believe that God the Word actually ‘‘ took flesh and put 
on a Man”? in the womb of the Virgin, as the Nicene Creed expressly teaches, 
and that He was born in that Man out of her womb, and that as He is incarnate: 
in that Man, that Man must be capable of containing Him, even His Divine: 
Substance, and that in that Man He journeyed from Bethlehem to Egypt, and! 
from Egypt to Nazareth, from Nazareth to Galilee, to Jordan, Jerusalem, and. 
other places in Palestine, and went up from the Mount of Olives in that body to. 
the right hand of His Father, and is in it now, and will come in it to reign on 
this earth, and finally, in it to judge the world. 


(664), page 322. Greek, τὰς ὑποστάσεις μετὰ τὴν ἔνωσιν. ‘‘The [two] Sub- 
stances ’’ of course are God the Word, the Divine Substance, and the Man put 
on, the created and human substance. 80 that it is clear that while Cyril did 
not believe in the Nestorian separation of the Natures, he nevertheless plainly 
implies that he believed that they still exist after their union, and hence he was 
a Two-Natureite, and not a One-Natureite. Ifit be asked, What was the Nes- 
torian separation of the Two Natures in Christ, I answer, as I have before, that 


324 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


ent we natn 


dignity, that is, of authority, or power, and not rather in a coming 


Pe a Qs). 


it consisted in denying the Incarnation of the Substance of the Eternal Word in 
the Man, and the belief that the Two Natures were separated so widely that the 
Man was on earth, and the Substance of the Eternal Word was in heaven at the 
same time; and that God the Word dwelt in that Man only as He dwelt in the 
prophets, thatis, by His Spirit only. And the Union was deemed by them to be 
not Personal, because they held that the Person of the Word did not dwell in 
the Man; but they deemed it ve/ative only, because they held that the Eternal 
Word dwelt in that Man by the Holy Spirit only, which is related to Him as 
being His Spirit. Compare notes 156 to 161, page 61-72 above. 


This Nestorian separation of the Two Natures in Christ therefore resulted in 
two fundamental errors, namely, 


τ, in denying the Incarnation of the Substance of the Word in the Man; 


And 2, as a necessary consequence of the first position, in asserting that all 
the acts of religious service given to Christ during his stay on earth were to the 
Man direétly and to God the Word indireéily only, that is, velatively. Hence 
they were Man-Servers, that is, Creature-Servers, and A postates (as canons of 
this Third Ecumenical Synod in effect call them), from the Christian Faith. And 
in bringing relative service into the Christian Church, to excuse their service to 
a creature, they were using the argument by which, in effect, Aaron 
sanctioned relative service to Jehovah through the golden calf in the 
wilderness; by which, in effect, Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, made 
Israel to sin by giving relative service to the calves at Dan and 
Bethel, and by which the heathen in the days of Cyril of Alexandria, and 
always, have defended their idolatry and their service to creatures, and by which 
unreformed Greeks, Romanists and others still defend their image-worship, and 
their invocation of saints and of angels, and their bowing to them, and their 
other acts of service to them. 


For a further explanation of the expression, ‘‘dy His Substance,’’ see a 
note on Anathema VII. below. 


Nestorius made another attempt to evade Cyril’s charge of worshipping a 
mere man, by stating that while he parted Christ’s Two Natures, nevertheless he 
worshipped them together. See him, to that effect, in the Oxford translation of 
St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, pages 75, 76, 
69, 72. On page 77 and the context Cyril retorts that even so, he (Nestorius) 
was a worshipper of a Man. 


(665), page 325. I add here the alleged Nestorius’ Counter Anathema IIl.: 
“ΤΡ any one does not say that Christ is One by a [mere external] conjunction, 
who is also Emmanuel, [Emmanuel is explained in Counter Anathema 1. to be 
a mere Man], but that He is one by a Nature which is made up ofeach of the 
two Substances, that is, that of God the Word and that of the Man taken by 
Him, and does not at all confess the one [mere external] connection of a Son, 
which even now we preserve without any mingling [of the Two Natures], let 
him be anathema.”’ 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 325 


together in a Nature Union, let him be anathema (665). 

IV. Ifany one divides between two Persons, that is, Subsist- 
ences, (666) the expressions in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, 
whether the said expressions be uttered of Anointed by the Saints 
(667), or uttered by Him concerning Himself, and applies some of 
them as to a Man separately considered, as aside from that Word 
Who has come out of God, and applies others, as befitting God, to 
the Word alone, Who has come out of God the Father, let him be 
anathema (668). 


But, as has been said, Cyril did not mix up the Two Natures into a Third 
Thing, nor did he, on the other hand, like this Nestorian curser, deny the 
Inman and put in its place a mere external connection of them, in the sense 
that the Man was indwelt, not by the Eternal Substance of God the Word, but 
by the influences of His Spirit merely. For that, after all his verbiage, is what. 
this Nestorian means. 

Cyril’s Anathema III. is explained above in this Longer Epistle on pages 
215-221. Compare the Shorter Epistle, pages 61-79. See also the drift of Nes- 
torius’ Epistle to Cyril on pages 155 to 166. See also pages 84 and 126 above, 
note—very important. 

Cyril, in his Anathema III. condemns the Nestorian idea of a mere external 
conjoining of Christ’s two Natures, and granting them, the Eternal Word, the 
Creator, and the mere Man, the mere creature, a connection ‘“‘z2 dignity, that 
zs, in authority or power,’ as though a mere creature, a thing so infinitely dif- 
ferent from, and so infinitely inferior to God the Word, could have the same 
dignity and authority and power as He! As though such a blasphemy should 
not be clear at once to all! The error condemned by Cyril here involves, as 
held to by the Nestorians, the giving that mere creature relatively worship 
by bowing (προσκύνησις), and by the other acts of service, all which are prerogative 
to the uncreated Divinity alone; in other words, it involves the worship of a mere 
Man, that is, the worship of a creature, contrary to Christ’s own inviolable 
law in Matthew iv., το, and the wreck of Christianity’s fundamental tenet there 
enunciated. Nestorius’ relative worship of Christ’s humanity is set forth by 
him as quoted in St. Cyril’s Five Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, Book II., Section XI., atthe end. Seeit further on in this Act I. 
among the utterances of Nestorius, cited as evidence of his Man-Worship 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία), on the basis of which, as well as for his other errors, he was de- 
posed. Seein the same work of St. Cyril, Book II., Sections 7 to 14 inclusive, where 
St. Cyril charges him with making a God (θεοποιίας) of that Man. The place is 
on pages 63-81, and the mention of God-making on page 71. See note 183. 


(666), page 325. Greek, προσώποις δυσὶν ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι. The Latin ren- 
dering, which is said to be by Marius Mercator, is personis duabis vel subsist- 
entiis. 

(667), page 325. Greek, ἐπὶ Χριστῷ. 

(668), page 325. Cyril, in his two Epistles, approved in the above Act L., 


926 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ne eel. 


Vv. If any one dares to say that the Anointed One 1s an 


ce τ π-.ι.0--Ο-΄--τοΟ-ς-ςἘς----  πππν 


insists that the Two Natures yet exist in Christ. But in this Anathema ENG ΠΕ 
insists also that out of respect to the Divine, the infinitely superior, the control- 
ling and guiding nature in the Son, we must economically ascribe to Him, God 
the Word, all the human names and human expressions used of that Man in the 
New Testament, in order to guard against our being led, as were the Nestorians, 
to worship a mere creature, contrary to Matt. iv., 10. See on this point under 
Economic Appropriation, in the General Index to Volume I. of Vicaea in this 
Set, where St. Athanasius and his successor, St. Cyril, teach this necessary 
doétrine, now alas! too much forgotten, though approved in those two of Cyril’s 
Epistles which were adopted by the whole Church at Ephesus, and which there- 
fore are eternally unchangeable and binding. The part of Cyril’s Longer 
Epistle which serves to explain his Anathema IV. is found above on pages 241 
to 255, or to 268, text. Compare pages 60-112 of the text of the Shorter Epistle, 
and Cyril’s Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-born, passim, and especially, Sec- 
tion 13, pages 200 to 203. Compare with Counter Anathema IV., Nestorius’ 
condemned Epistle above on pages 155-166. The author of Counter Anathema 
LV. shows at once that he understands Cyril to set forth a part of his doctrine of 
Economic Appropriation in his Anathema IV., that is, the appropriation to God 
the Word not only of the expressions which belong to His own Divinity, such as 
God, the Word, etc., but also all those relating to his humanity, such, for 
instance, as those which speak of suffering and death. I quote that Counter 
Curse: 


The Nestorian Counter Anathema IV.: 


“Tfany one understands as though they belonged to [but] One Nature, those 
expressions in the Gospels and in the Apostolic Epistles which were written con- 
cerning Christ, who is of Two Natures, and tries to ascribe the sufferings of flesh 
as well as of Divinity also to the Word Himself of God, let him be anathema;”’ 


΄ 


Here, as usual, the Nestorian implies that Cyril was a One-Natureite, and 
that he held that God the Word was the only Nature after the Union, and that 
hence God the Word suffered in birth, at the crucifixion, in hungering, thirst- 
ing and in weariness, where we read in Holy Writ that Christ suffered. But to 
refute the slander one has only to read the condemnation of One-Natureism in 
Cyril’s two Epistles above. The two great Alexandrians, Athanasius, whom 
Cyril, in his ecumenically approved Lpistle to John of Antioch, especially pro- 
fessed to follow everywhere, were very Clear for the Two Natures and the doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation. I have room here only to remark that Athan- 
asius was prescient in antecedently condemning the Nestorian and the Eutychian 
heresies; see the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius’ Later Treatises, Observa- 
tions in front, page xi., text and notes, and pages 10, 11, 12, and notes there. 

See Athanasius’ plain confession of the Two Natures and his description of 
them, id., page 11, 12, and notes there. 


Athanasius approves the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation, embodied 
afterwards in Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema Χ 711, see Athanasius’ Ovations 


Reading of ΟΥγῆϊς Long Epistle to Nestorius. 327 


inspired man (669), and not rather that He is really God, as [being 


against the Arians, Oxtora .ranslation, sections 31, 32, and especially 34, pages 
443, 444, 445-447, 448-451. On page 446 St. Athanasius shows that this tenet 
keeps us from being Man-Worshippers. I have quoted part of the passage in 
volume I of Vicaea in this set. 

(669), page 327. Greek, Ei tio τολμᾷ λέγειν θεοφόρον ἄνθρωπον τὸν Χριστον. 
Hammond, who deserves credit for his translation of some things on the Six 
Synods, errs here badly by translating Θεοφόρον ἄνθρωπον, ‘only a Man bearing 
God,’’ an expression which might be taken to mean that Nestorius held to the 
do¢trine that the Substance of the Word was in the Man and that Cyril denied 
it, whereas the contrary was the fact. For Nestorius held that the Word dwelt 
not in that Man except by His Spirit, and that the Son was merely an inspired 
Man therefore. See Hammond’s Canons of the Church, New York edition of 
1844, pagego. In the Latin translation, on page 37, of P. EK. Pusey’s 7hree 
Lpistles of S. Cyril, occurs a similar blunder in rendering the expression, by 
‘hominem Θεοφόρον, id est Deum ferentem.’’ And so it is misrendered in the 
Oxford translation of 8. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestor- 
ius, page 128, where we find Nestorius’ Greek, as in Cyril’s Five Book Contra- 
dittion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book IV., Section I., Θεοφόρος οὖν 
ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστός, rendered by ‘‘a God-clad man therefore 15 Christ.’’ It should 
be translated, “7.64 Anointed One is therefore a [mere] inspired Man.’? What 
“ἰῷ God-clad man’’ means would be a puzzler to any one. Whocan make any 
sense ofit? An iron-clad ship is a ship clad withiron. But does any one be- 
lieve that the human body of Christ was really clad with the Substance of God 
the Word’s Divinity? In the same translation, page 157, the same term, 
Θεοφόρον, is rendered ‘‘ God-bearing,”’ but that does not bring out the full sense. 
St. Cyril is there, in Section I. of Book V. of his δῖνος Book Contradiction of 
the Blasphemies of Nestorius, contrasting his Orthodox belief regarding Christ 
with that of Nestorius, and he writes, 


“‘ For we indeed do not say merely that a man is inspired, but thatthe Word 
Who came out of God has been united to flesh in fact and in truth.’’? The Greek, as 
on page 210 of Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s Cyril is as follows: Οὐ yap τοι Θεοφόρον 
elvai φαμεν ἄνθρωπον ἀπλῶς, ἀλλὰ αὐτόχρημα κατὰ ἀλήθειαν τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Λόγον ἡνῶσθαε 
σαρκί, etc. Such blunders render it impossible to get at Cyril’s meaning in the 
places affected by them. That translation should be revised and perfected. 


On the above Anathema V., see above, text of the Longer Epistle, pages 
215-217, especially pages 216 and 217. Compare page 115, note. 


We add Zhe Nestorian Counter Anathema V; 


“ΤΡ any one dares to say that after the taking of the Man there was [but] 
One Son of God by Nature, when Emmanuel also is a Son, let hira be anathema.”’ 
Here the Nestorian implies again that Cyril was a Monophysite, and implies 
also that the Emmanuel was a mere Man, as is shown by his Counter Anathema 
I. Heimplies also what Cyril charges him with, that is, that there are Two 


928 Act 7. of Ephésus. 


ee a ea Sn Sa ne ο TEEN EP πιθσοοι 


the] One Son by [His Divine] Nature, forasmuch as the Word was 
made flesh, and like us shared blood and flesh, let him be anathema. 

VI. If any one dares to say that the Word Who came out of 
God the Father is God or Master (670) of the Anointed (671) One, 


ALSO Ream ag INN VP ATS SAN CR a INN A ΕἸ ΞΕΑΘΘΔΟΣ ἐωώλξέοε-ς---ς---. 
Sons, God the Word, and a mere Man; and both to be worshipped, as we shall 
see under Anathema VIII. See onthis Anathema V., pages 214, 215, 221-230, 
in the Longer Epistle above, and compare the Shorter, pages 60 to 114, and Nes- 
torius’ condemned Epistle on pages 155-166, text. Τί seems impossible for any 
fair man to read those two Epistles of St. Cyril, and what remains of his work 
against the Synousiast Monophysites, and to believe him a One-Natureite. If 
those two Epistles were not plainly, as they are, Two-Natureite, the Universal 
Church would never have approved them at Ephesus. 

(670), page 328. Greek, δεσπότην. 

(671), page 328. Greek, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, that is, the Christ. But Cyril, in his 
Scholia on the Incarnation of the Sole-Born, page 186 of the Oxford translation 
of S. Cyrilof Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, defines Christ 
as follows: 

‘‘ Christ therefore is THE WorRD oF Gop called, Who because of us and as 
weis Man and in servant’s form [Philip ii., 6, 7,] both Anointed as Man after 
the Flesh, and anointing Divinely with Hisown Spirit them that believe on Him.”’ 
That is, Cyril always applies all the expressions in Holy Writ in regard to God 
the Word, and those on the Man puton by Him to the Word. Inthe case of the 
human things, such as suffering, death, etc., these are ascribed to God the Word. 
Economically only, as Cyril explains again and again. See for example Anath- 
ema XII. below. St. Cyril explains this Anathema VI, in the text above, 
pages 215-221. Compare the drift of the Shorter Epistle, text of pages 60-112 
above. See also Nestorius’ condemned Epistle, pages 155-166. His illogical 
and, on theological questions, incompetent mind is there apparent. He lacked 
acumen to understand and appreciate the vastness of the points involved, though 
Cyril, in the very letter to which the above of Nestorius is a reply, had made 
them sufficiently clear to every fair mind. 

I here append Zhe Nestorian Counter Anathema VI.: 


“Tf any one, after an [alleged] Incarnation, names any other besides Christ 
God the Word, and endeavors to assert that ‘¢he form of a servant’ [Philip 11., 
7,] did not have its beginning from God the Word, and that that ' jorm’ is 
uncreated as He Himself is, and does not rather confess that it was created by 
Himself as its natural Lord and Creator and God, which He promised to raise 
again by His own power, when He said to the Jews, Destroy this temple, and in 
three days I will raise it up [John ii., 19], let him be anathema.” 


The first clause is so obscure in sense that I suspect here a corruption of the 
text. Indeed, these Counter Anathemas have been badly mangled either in the 
translation or by copyists or editors. The passage, however, may be understood 
as an assertion against what he deemed St. Cyril’s One-Natureism and his con- 
sequent holding to the Transubstantiation of the human nature of the Man into 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 329 


and does not rather confess that the same One is both God and man 
together, forasmuch as the Word has been made flesh according to the 
Scriptures (672), let him be anathema. 

VII. If any one says that Jesus, as [being] a [mere] Man, was 
[merely] energized (673) by God the Word, and that the glory of 
the Sole-Born (674) has been put about him [that mere Man] as 


the Substance of the Divinity of God the Word, that is, Nestorius held that, so 
far as Substance is concerned, there was but One Nature in Christ after the 
Union, (Nestorius believed in no real Incarnation), and that it was the human, 
that is the mere Man, and that to Him can be properly applied the expression 
God, a sort of creature-worship which St. Cyril condemns in Anathema VIII. 
below. Next, the Nestorian, supposing St. Cyril to hold that Christ’s flesh was 
not taken from the Virgin, but had appertained to the Logos from the begin- 
ning, and that it merely passed through her as water passes through a pipe or 
canal, without taking anything from her, and that Cyril held also to the error 
that His flesh was uncreated, condemns both those errors. Cyril, of course, 
admitted that Christ’s flesh was created by the Father through the Spirit (Heb. 
x., 5-10; Luke i, 35; and Matt. 1., 20). But Gregory of Nazianzus is cited as 
stating that Apollinaris taught that ‘‘the flesh of Christ had come down from 
heaven,’ and he and Pope Martin at the Lateran Council, A. D. 649, Act IIL., 
are adduced for the statement that Christ’s body passed through the Virgin ‘‘as 
water through a pipe.’? See Blunt in his article, Afollinarians, page 41 of his 
Diétionary of Seéis, outer columin. 


The fact is, Cyril always sees in the Son ‘‘ one injfleshed Nature of God the 
Word,’ and the Man in whom He is, as being by nature infinitely below Him, 
is merely His wrapping for the human things. According to Cyril that mere 
wrapping is no part of His Consubstantial Person, for It is all God. Nor is that 
Man a distinct person, as the Nestorians asserted, but a distinct nature, and that 
human. 

(672), page 329. Johni., 14. See this idea in the passage from the Scholia 
in the last note above. It occurs again and again in Cyril. 

(673), page 329. Or, ‘‘ was operated on,”’ or “‘ was inworked, ἐνηργήσθαι, 

(674), page 329. Greek, τοῦ Μονογενοῦς. ““ The Sole-Born,’’ always in Cyril 
means God the Word, Who is ‘‘ Sole-born out of the Substance of the Father,’’ 
as the Creed of the First Synod words it. Such is its meaning here. See Cyril 
of Alexandria’s Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-Born, Section 13. 

The heresies condemned in this anathema are, 

1. The Nestorian error that Jesus was a mere inspired Man, like the Apos- 
tles and the Prophets, and that the Swdstance of God the Word was not in Him 
to work the miracles which He did, but only that the zz/fluences of the Holy 
Spirit energized that mere Man to perform them, in the same sense as they en- 
ergized the Apostles and the Prophets to perform miracles also; only, according 
to Nestorius, his mere human Christ was energized to a fuller degree and extent 
by the mere influences of tbe Spirit than they were. 


990 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ee EE ------ ΘΠ ΉΞ  ““-ςεοοου 


being another besides [the Sole-Born Word] Himself (675), let him 
be anathema. 


2. The other error condemned is ‘“‘that the glory of the Sole-born,’’ thatis, the 
glory of God the Word, which of course includes worship, “λας been put about’’ 
Jesus as Man, “ας about another besides [God the Word] Himself.”’ Cyril’s con- 
demnation of that Man-Worship is, of course, in strict accordance with God’s 
own utterance in Isaiah xlii., 8; “1 am the Lord, that is my name; and MY 
GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE To ANOTHER.”’ Cyril, as is shown in this work, note 
183, page 79, and note 582, page 225, held that all religious service is prerogative 
to God; and hence that none of it can be given to the Man put on by Him. And 
this he deemed to be in strict accordance with Christ’s own command, ‘‘ Thou 
shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and H1M ONLY shalt thou serve”? (Matt. iv., 10, 
and Luke iv., 8). For he so argues again and again. See the whole of notés 
183 and 582 on that topic. ‘ 


I here add Zhe Nestorian Counter Anathema VIL: 


“Tf any one asserts that the Man who was created out of the Virgin is the 
Sole-Born, who was born out of the inside of the Father before the morning star 
[was made, Psalm cix., 3, Septuagint], and does not rather confess that he 
[that Man] was dignified with the appellation of So/e-Born on account of his 
Union to Him Who is, by [His Divine] Nature, So/e-Gorn of the Father, and 
that he [the Man] has been made sharer [of Divine honors with Him, Ged the 
Word], and says that Jesus was some other oe besides Emmanuel, let him be 
anathema.”’ 

Of course Cyril, as his works abundantly show, did not hold that Christ’s 
humanity was born out of the Father before the morning star was made, but 
that God the Word was. In what follows we see that this Nestorius or Nestor- 
ian gives God the Word’s name of Sole-Born, that is, Sole-Born out of the 
Father, as Cyril understands it, and His Divine honors to a mere creature, his 
merely human Jesus, his merely human Emmanuel, his merely human Sole- 
Born. For his use of Emmanuel see his Counter Anathema I. Cyril makes all 
those names prerogative to God the Word; see his Scholia on the Inman of the 
Sole-Born, Oxford translation, Sections 2, 7, and 37, pages 186, I91, and 234, on 
Emmanuel; and Se&tion 3, page 188, and Section 13, page 200, on /esus; and 
section 35, page 228, and sections 4, 13, 27 and 32, pages 189, 200, 213 and 221, 
as to Sole-Born, that is, as it is there translated inexactly, Only Begotten. See 
also in the index to that volume under Jmmanuel, Jesus, and Only Begotien. 

Cyril explains his Anathema VII. in his Long Letter above, pages 214-217. 
Compare the Shorter Epistle, pages 60-112, and Nestorius’ condemned Epistle. 

(675), page 330. Hither “the Word”’ or ‘‘the Sole-Born’’ must be under- 
stood by ‘‘ Himself,” and practically both mean the Word. See the last note 
above. 

By Jesus Cyril means the Word. He applies that name as he does all the 
names of the Son, tothe Word. I quote here only one out of all the places in 
Cyril to show how he understands and uses the term ‘‘/esas.’’ It is found on 


Reading of Cyril's Long Lpistle to Nestorius. 331 


VIII. If any one dares to say that the man taken on [by the 
Word] ought to be co-bowed to (676) with God the Word, and to be 
co-glorified, and to be co-called God [with the Word], as one with 
Another, for the term ‘‘co’’ always [thus] added, of necessity, 
means that; and does not rather honor the Emmanuel (677), [that is, 


page 188 of the Oxford translation of ‘.S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarna- 
tion against Nestorius.’’ It is as follows: ; 

‘« What is Jesus? By the force of the ideas whereby we are bound to speak 
of One Son of God, Christ [that is Azointed], and Emmanuel [that is, God 
with us|, and Jesus (that is Saviour] are the Same, and this name too from 
the fact, for he shall save (it says) His people from their sins (Matt. i., 21). 
Kor just as the name Limmanuel meant that the Word of God through His Birth 
of a woman was made with us; and Christ again, that made man, He is said to 
be anointed as we in human wise; so too /esus, that He saved us, Hs people, 
which specially proves Him to be truly God and by Nature Lord of all. For the 
creature is not said to belong to a mere man, but rather it will befit to say that 
all things are the Only Begotten’s, even though He was made Man.’ Only 
Begotten is here an inexact translation of Unigeniti, the So/e-Born, the Eternal 
Word. Yor we have this part of the Scholza in a Latin rendering only. See 
further page 200 of the same Oxford translation of St. Cyril Against Nestorius, 
where we see that all the human as well as all the divine names of the Son are 
ascribed to God the Word, the human, Economically. 


(676). That is, ‘‘ ought to be co-worshipped,”’ bowing, the most common of 
the acts of worship, being here used by Cyril for them all, as he often does. 


(677). The Greek here μιᾷ προσκυνήσει, means first, ‘‘ zwzth | but] ove bow,’’ 
and then as dowing is the most common act of religious worship (for we bow 
even when we stand, kneel, or prostrate ourselves), and as it is therefore often 
put for them all, the expression comes, secondly, to mean, “‘ w7th [but] ove wor- 
ship,’’ which is the sense here. In other words, Cyril here means that in 
addressing the Son we use but one sort of worship, and that absolute and divine, 
that is, 4o God the Word alone, not relative and human, that is, fo the creature, 
the mere Man whom the Word took. This Anathema, by necessary implica- 
tion, forbids all worship to any creature whomsoever and whatsoever. For 
surely if any one be anathema for worshipping the mere humanity of Christ 
because it is a creature, aye, as all admit, the highest of all mere creatures, 
much more is he anathema if he worships any creature less than that perfect 
Humanity, whether that inferior creature be animate, as for instance the Virgin 
Mary or any other saint or angel, or inanimate, like a corpse, or any part ofa 
dead body, as for example, a bone, or head, or tooth, or hair, or some other 
part ot a martyr’s or other saint’s body. 

Much more still are we anathema by this Ecumenically approved Decision 
if we relatively worship any graven image, picture, cross, painted or graven, 
altar, the Bible or any part thereof, any ecclesiastical building or any part 
thereof, any clerical vestment, or any other mere inanimate thing, whether such 


592 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


as ‘‘the Emmanuel’? means, ‘‘ the Gop with us’’] with [but] one 
worship and (678) send up [but] one glorifying to Him, on the 
ground that the Word has been made flesh, let him be anathema 


(679), (680). 


act be bowing, prostration, kneeling, incensing, invoking, kissing or any other 
act of religious service whatsoever. That these are acts of religious service used 
by the ancient idolaters I have shown in a series of Articles in The Church 
Journal of New York City for August, 1870. I hope to embody them in a little 
enlarged form in this Set, in one of the volumes pertaining to Ephesus. 


(678). As Emmanuel means ‘‘ God with us,” the honor is therefore to Him. 


(679). As this is a very important enactment, we give it in full: Ei τις τολμᾷ 
λέγειν τὸν ἀναληφθέντα ἄνθρωπον συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι καὶ 
συγχρηματίζειν Θεὸν, ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ, τὸ γὰρ Σὺν ἀεὶ προστιθέμενον τοῦτο νοεῖν ἀναγκάσει 
καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον μιᾷ προσκυνήσει, τιμᾷ τὸν ᾿Βμμανουὴλ, καὶ μίαν Αὐτῷ τὴν δοξολογίαν' 
ἀναπέμπει, καθὸ γέγονε σὰρξ ὁ Λόγος, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

In a note on this place, in my remarks on the different forms of this Anath- 
ematism VIII., in a work on the XII. Chapters, to be published, if God will, I 
have shown that in the other two places where Cyril sets it forth, the reading 
after ὡς above is not ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ, but ἕτερον érépw, and that the old Latin ver- 
sion of it, said to be by Marius Mercator of century V., has alterum cum altero, 
(Ρ. EB. Pusey’s Three Epistles of Cyril, page 37, and id., Preface, page v.) and 
that the Nestorians, against whom it is aimed, did not bow to the Man put on by 
the Word, as ‘‘oue in another,” but as ‘‘ one apart from another,” which there- 
fore is, beyond all doubt, the original reading. The ἐν may be an interpolation 
of some Nestorianized person who did not think that Cyril could refuse to wor- 
ship both Natures, and so to bow to the humanity which the Word put on, with 
the Word. Nevertheless ἐν, with the dative, is sometimes rendered with. So 
that even with that reading, since no one supposes that the Man put on is ‘‘iz” 
the Word, we should have to render it also by the words, ‘‘as one with Another.” 

I have shown elsewhere in this work that Cyril’s do¢trine, which, by the 
way, is approved by the Universal Church, is that we may not give bowing or 
any other act of religious service separately to the Man put on by the Eternal 
Word, but must serve God alone as Christ commands in Matt. iv., Io, and in 
Luke iv., 8. See especially the Dissertation on Anathema VIIL. of Cyril, ina 
work on the XII. Chapters, to be published, if God will, in this Set. 

Cyril explains this Anathema VIII. in his Longer Epistle above, pages 221- 
224, and in the Shorter on pages 79-106. See also the notes in those places, 
where quotations from Cyril will be found. 

To show the contrast between Cyril’s condemnation of the worship of 
Christ's Humanity, and the Nestorian approval of it, I here append 7he /Ves- 
torian Counter Anathema VIIL.: 

‘“‘Tf any one says that ¢he form of a servant itself [Philip 11., 7] is to be wor- 
shipped for itself, that is, by reason of its own nature, and that it is 
Lord of ail things [Acts x., 36; compare Rom. xiv., 9], by reason of its own 
nature, and does not rather worship it [he form of a servant] on account of the 


keading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 999 


IX. Τῇϑην one says that the One Lord Jesus Anointed was 


association with which it is conjoined and connected with the Blessed and of 
Itself by Nature Lordly Nature of the Sole-Born, let him be anathema,” 


Here the Nestorian, while confessing that Christ’s humanity, being a crea- 
ture, cannot be worshipped for the sake of its own nature, nevertheless falls 
back on the heathen and Nestorian excuse of Relative Worship, and contends 
that it can on account of its being associated externally with God the Word. 
Cyril denies that it can be worshipped at all; see on that point note 156, pages 
61-69 above for more of that Nestorian Relative Union and Relative Worship; 
and for Cyril’s view that all worship of the Son must be to His Divinity alone, 
see note 183, pages 79, 80, and in note 582, page 225; and indeed all of those 
notes. Compare notes 580, 581, on pages 221-225. 

At this point let the reader by all means turn back and read in the part of 
note 183, which is on pages 108-112 above, the Ecumenically approved utter- 
ances against the Nestorian confessed, and I will add also, against the Mono- 
physite aézwal, though not confessed, Worship of Christ’s Humanity; and see 
especially there Anathemas IX. and XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and 
the other language of that Synod against all worship of Christ’s Humanity. See 
also pages 112-128 for quotations from some chief Nestorian writers for the Wor- 
ship of Christ’s Humanity against St. Cyril and the Orthodox. See also notes 
582 and 583, pages 225 and 226 above; and page 114, note, and page 115, note, 
and pages 61-69, notes 152 and 156. 

Presuming therefore, that the reader has read all those places, I come to re- 
mark that in brief, the difference between St. Cyril and the Nestorians on the 
one hand and the One-Natureites on the other as to worshipping the humanity 
of Christ may be stated as follows: 


First, All agreed in worshipping the Divinity of the Word. 


But, secondly, they differed as to worshipping the Man, that is, the Creature 
put on by Him in Mary’s womb; as follows: 


A. The Nestorians worshipped Him re/atively only to God the Word, Who, 
they alleged, indwelt that creature ot by His divine Substance but by the in- 
fluences of His Spirit only as He indwelt the Prophets and Apostles. Hence, as 
Anathema IX., of the Fifth World Council teaches, the Nestorians, by asserting 
that ‘‘ Christ is to be worshipped in two Natures,’ * * * introduced “two 
worships, one peculiar to God the Word, and another peculiar to the Man,” that 
is, they brought in two sorts of worship by bowing, as the Greek here means, 
(that being the most common act of worship and so standing for them all), one 
God-commanded and acceptable, that is, the worship of God the Word: and an- 
other, God-forbidden and non-acceptable, because it was given to a Man, that is 
to a creature, and so is Creature Worship. See Isaiah, xlii., 8, quoted against it 
by St. Cyril in the Oxford translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incar- 
nation Against Nestorius, pages 47 and 263. So he adduces Matthew iv., το, 
against the Nestorian worship of Christ’s created humanity, as for instance, in 
his Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-born, section 25, page 544, Vol. ΙΕ OPPs 


334 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


glorified by the Spirit, as using, through It, Another’s power, and 


-.ὄ.θ»ςἘ.-ΞῬ»Ῥ..ἘςΘΨ. 


E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of S¢. Cyril of Alexandria’s Works. In the 
second section St. Cyril, with reference to the logical connection between the Nes- 
torian denial of the Incarnation, and the Nestorian merely external Union of the 
Two Natures, says that to make Christ a mere inspired Man is to bring in ¢he 
crime of worshipping a Man upon us. I translate from the Latin version, the 
Greek of this place being for the most part lost : 


‘‘God alone is free and absolute. For, so to speak, He demands tributes 
from all, and so to speak, receives worship as due from all [or ‘‘as in place of 
debts from all.’’] Andif Christ be the end of the Law and the Prophets, [Rom. 
x., 4], but is a [mere] inspired Man, may we not say that the end of the pro- 
phetic predictions has brought THE CRIME OF WORSHIPPING A MAN TO US? 


Moreover, the Law indeed was proclaiming, Zhou shalt bow to the Lord 
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, [Deut. vi., 4, 5, 13: compare Matt. iv., 
107, with which teaching it led us to Christ as to a knowledge better for those 
who had been in the shadows. Shall we then scorn to worship God and worship 
a [mere] Man who has God indwelling him [by the influences of His Spirit 
only]?’’ The mere Man is Nestorius’ merely human Christ. The Latin, with 
one important Greek word in it, is given by P. E. Pusey here and reads as fol- 
lows: (I correct a little of the punctuation and capitalizing, etc.): Solus enim 
Deus liber atque solutus est: Solus enim quasi tributa omnium exigit, et tam- 
quam loco debitorum ab omnibus recipit religionem. Et si exitus legis et pro- 
phetarum Christus est, est autem homo theoforus ; nonne dicere liceat quod pro- 
pheticarum praedicationum exitus ἀνθρωπολατρείας nobis crimen induxerit ? 


Deinde lex quidem praedicabat, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et Ei soli 
servies, qua nos eruditione perduxit ad Christum quasi ad agnitionem illis qui 
in umbris fuerant potiorem. Spernentesne igitur Deum adorare, adorabimus 
hominem habentem Deum inhabitantem ? 


Let us examine more closely Anathema VIII. of Cyril approved by the 
Third Synod, and such parts of Anathema IX. of the Fifth Council, as condemn 
the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity, that we may see at once what the 
Universal Church has said on those matters, which settles the whole question 
forever. 


Anathema VIII, of St. Cyril and of Ephesus : 


“Tf any one dares to say that the Man taken on is to be co-bowed-to with 
God the Word and to be co-glorified and co-called God with Him as one with 
Another, (for the CO always added, forces us to infer that), and will not, on the 
contrary, honor the Emmauuel, and send up [but] the one glorifying to Him, 
on the ground that the Word has been made flesh, let Him be anathema.”’ 
Here all the Worship is given to God the Word, and expressly on the basis that 
He is in the Man put on, to receive it. Here, asin the Anathema below quoted, 
is a prohibition of co-worshipping a Man with the Word, and of co-glorifying him 
with the Word, as for instance when we say, ‘‘ Glory be to thee, O Christ,” and 
of applying the name of God to that creature, for, as Cyril as quoted in this note 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 335 


that He received from It the power to operate against unclean 


above, teaches, God has said in Isaiah xlii., 8, 7am the Lord [Jehovah, in He- 
brew] : that ἐς My name: and my glory will I not give to another. And bowing 
here used for all acts of worship, glorifying, and His name, are all parts of that 
glory which no creature can share. 

Anathema IX., of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 553, which follows 
Cyril’s teachings : 

““[fany one says that the Anointed One ts to be bowed to in Two Natures, by 
which two worships are brought in, one peculiar to God the Word, and another 
peculiar to the Man * * * but will not bow to God the Word infleshed with- 
in Hisown flesh, with [but] one worship, as the Church of God has received 
Strom the beginning, let such a one be anathema.’ 


Here two worships are referred to, 1, that to God the Word, which is com- 
manded in Holy Writ because He is God (Heb. i., 6, 8. This is Goa- Worship 
and is approved. 

2, the worship of Christ’s Humanity isreferred to. It, of course, is what St. 
Cyril in the passage just quoted in this note calls ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is the wor- 
ship of a Man, and is held by Cyril, as he teaches in passages mentioned above 
in this note, to be forbidden in Psalm lxxxi., 9, Isaiah xlii., 8, and in Matthew 
iv., Io. See pages 94, 95, 96 and 103 above, note. For other passages of Cyril 
against the Worship of Christ’s humanity see page 94. For instances of Nes- 
torius’ relative worship of Christ’s Humanity, and of St. Cyril’s condemnation 
of that error, see pages 114, 115 above, note. 

In other words the Two Natures referred to in this Anathema IX. are, 1, 
Christ’s Divine, and 2, Hishuman. The latter, it forbids us to worship. We 
are to worship One Nature only in the Son, and that the Divine. Anathema 
is its penalty for worshipping the created nature. This enactment is very 
clear. According to it, every Orthodox Christian is a One Nature Worshipper 
and he who is a worshipper of Two Natures is anathematized. This utter- 
ance of Universal Christendom is strong and decided. 

Further on in Act I of Ephesus, Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and Chief 
of the Secretaries informs the Council that he has ‘‘dooks * * * of the BLAS- 
PHEMIES Of * * * Nestorius, from one book of which,’ adds he, ‘‘ we have 
chosen out short Chapters, which, if it please this Holy Synod, we will vead.”’ 

The Council orders them to be read. 

Then Peter proceeds to read 20 Passages ‘‘ of the BLASPHEMIES”’ of Nestor- 
ius. As I am treating here of the Nestorian relative worship of Christ’s Human- 
ity, I refer to those only which relate to it, and which show his plain Man 
Worship, that is his Creature-Worship, and that like that of the heathen it was 
relative. The Passages which set it forth are the 8th, 9th, roth, and 14th, 
Compare Passage 15th. 

Especially clear as showing (1) Nestorius’ worship of Christ’s Humanity, a 
mere creature ; and (2) as showing that it was velative only like the heathen 


336 Act I. of Ephesus. 


spirits, and to accomplish the God-wrought miracles for men; 


worship of their images, that is, that he did not worship Christ’s mere Human- 
ity, which all admit to be acreature, for 115 own sake, (for he seems to have 
perceived that that was a return to the paganism of creature worship), but oz 
account of its relation to God the Word, that is, not that God the Word indwelt 
that creature by His Eternal Substance, but because He indwelt him by the zz- 
fluences of His Spirit only as He indwelt the Apostles and the Prophets. This 
also is plain creature worship, but Nestorius’ head was so thick that he saw it 
not. I quote some of the clearest of those Relative Worship Passages, leaving 
the reader toexamine the context more fully. 


Passage 8 of Nestorius’ ‘‘ BLASPHEMIES.”’ 


‘‘T WORSHIP HIM [the mere Man] WHO IS WORN, FOR THE SAKE OF HIM 
[God the Word] Who wears. I BOW TO HIM [the mere Man] WHO IS SEEN, FOR 
THE SAKE OF HIM [God the Word] WHO IS HIDDEN. God is unseparated from 
him [the mere Man] who appears. For that reason I DO NOT SEPARATE THE 
HONOR Of the unseparated One. I separate the Natures, but J UNITE THE WOR- 
sHIp.’”? That is, he gave the same one worship to both Natures together, that 
is, he gave worship to the creature along with its Creator, the same honor to 
one as he did to the Other, only that it was given to the Word absolutely as His 
right by virtue of His being God ; and to the Man relatively only, not that as a 
creature he had any right to be worshipped, but he worshipped him on account 
of his relation to God the Word, as a Man inspired by the influences of His 
Spirit. 

Passage roof Nestorius’ Blasphemtes. 

‘‘LET US WORSHIP THE MAN CO-BOWED TO WITH THE ALMIGHTY GOD IN 
THE DIVINE CONJUNCTION.”’ 


Passage 14 of Nestorius’ Blasphemties : 


‘‘This is he [Nestorius’ mere Man] that said, Wy God, My God, why hast 
thou forsaken me? This is he [the mere Man] who endured the three days 
death, and I Bow To HIM [the mere Man] TOGETHER WITH THE Divinity [of 
the Word] INASMUCH AS HE IS A CO-WORKER WITH THE DIVINE AUTHORITY.”’ 


In Passage 5th, Nestorius argues that Christ’s mere Humanity may be called 
God ‘‘ by reason of tts [external] conjunction with God,” and in Passage 6th, he 
contends that that mere Humanity may be called Godin the sense that Moses was! 
Compare Passage 7th and 14th. Seethe note there. That giving the name of 
God to a creature, which is in itself a sort of act of worship, is anathematized by 
Cyril in his Anathema VIII. below. 


It is remarkable how the Holy Spirit by the Third Ecumenical Council for- 
bade all relative worship of the highest of all mere created things, the perfect 
Humanity of Christ, before the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, 
sanctioned the invocation of saints, the relative worship of the cross, of images, 
of relics, of the Scriptures, or any part of them, in its abominable and paganiz- 
ing and idolatrous Definition. It had the profane rashness and self evident im- 
piety in effect to anathemiatize Christ, His Apostles, and the Six Ecumenical 


Reading of Cyrils Long Epistle to Nestortus. 337 


and does not rather say that the Spirit is His (681) own Spirit, 


Synods for not giving ‘‘Salutation and honorary worship (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν 
προσκύνησιν), (as though there could be any worship which is not honorary), to 
crosses, images, and the other material things above mentioned, that is by kiss- 
ing, bowing, incense, and the burning of lights before said images, etc., as that 
document specifies. All that is, of course, a lower form of relative worship than 
that of Nestorius which is set forth in the above mentioned Passages of his, 
quoted as his ‘*d/asphemies,’’ on the basis of which he was condemned and de- 
posed ; for I have seen no proof that he so degraded himself as to worship images, 
or to invoke any creature, except the highest of all mere creatures, the perfect 
Humanity of Christ. Nestorius’ relative worship expressions are quoted and 
condemned by St. Cyril in his Longer Letter, pages 221-224 above ; and an ex- 
pression embodying and affirming that sin is found in the Creed ascribed to 
Theodore of Mopsuestia which was condemned in Act VI. of the Third Ecu- 
menical Council in the Decree, now Canon VII. there set forth, which imposes 
the penalty of deposition on every cleric holding its heresies, and of anathema 
on every laic whodoes. One of those heresies is the assertion that the merely 
human Nestorian Christ ‘‘veceives worship from all the creation, as having the 
inseparable [external] comjunétion with the Divine Nature [of the Word], αὐ 
the creation giving him worship with reference to God and in consideration of 
God:’? Greek, τὴν παρὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως δέχεται προσκύνησιν, ὡς ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν 
θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ἀναφορᾷ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ πάσης αὐτῷ τῆς κτίσεως τὴν προσ- 


κύνησιν ἀπονεμούσης. 

It is strange how the prejudices of early education move many, and keep 
them from impartial investigation and judgment. For instance, on our topic, 
Francis Patrick Kenrick, who died Latin Archbishop of Baltimore, in A. D. 1863, 
in his 7heologia Dogmatica, Vol. II., Phila., 1840, Tractat. VII., cap. IX., page 
258-261, actually goes so far as to assert that the error of the Nestorians as to wor- 
shipping Christ’s Humanity was that ‘‘ they dented to the Man Christ the divine 
worship which they gave to the Word: but the Church adores the one Person of 
the Word in the Two Natures.’ (Nestoriani homini Christo divinum recusabant 
cultum, quem tribuebant Verbo: sed Ecclesia unam Verbi personam in utraque 
natura adorat). Just below he remarks: 

“ΤῸ must indeed be carefully noticed that the flesh of Christ isto be regarded 
as existing in hypostatic conjoinment with the divine Word, and it is to beadored 
not for its own sake, but for the sake of the divine Subsistence Whom tt contains. 
But it is adored zz ztself, that is, itself is worshipped though the adoration is 
based not on it but on the Word,’’ Latin, Equidem id sedulo animadvertendum 
carnem Christi spectari prout divino Verbo hypostatice conjuncta subsistit, et 
adorari non propier 56, sed propter divinam quam habet Subsistentiam. Adora- 
tur tamen 272 sé, scilicet ipsa colitur, tametsi adoratio in illa non sistatur, sed in 
Verbo. 

Directly after he states the following ‘‘ Proposttion.”’ 

«« The human nature of Christ ts to be adored with one and the same su- 
preme worship of latria with the divine Word with Whom it is Hypeostatically 


998 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Dee ee eee ee ee - -------οοοῖαοορΟὲρ--΄Ο-ρ--ς-ςς----ς-ς- 


through Which also He wrought the miracles of God, let him be 
anathema. 


conjoined : atin, PRoposiT1o: Uno eodemque supremo lalriae cultu humana 
Christi natura adoranda est cum Verbo divino cum quo est hypostatice con- 
juncta.”” 

Here are several falsehoods in a few lines. Let us see what they are. 

IL. As tothe statement that the fault of the Nestorians was that, ‘‘ They dented 
to the Man Christ the divine worship which they gave to the Word.” Thisisa 
mere assertion withouta solitary fact for it in the two Epistles of Cyril above which 
were approved by the Third Synod, or in the Acts of the Council itself. I do 
not think that Kenrick could have ever read much of Cyril or of Ephesus, of 
which, under God, Cyril was the leader and mind, or he could hardly have ven- 
tured such an utterly false statement. See notes 156, 183, 580, 581 and 582 
above, where we see, 


(x). That Cyril’s charge on that point is that they gave Christ’s Humanity, 
being a creature, any worship at all, even what was relative, and anathematizes 
them for so doing. Much more, by necessary inference, does he anathematize 
any one who, like Kenrick, gives absolute worship to a mere creature. Cyril 
never faults Nestorius for refusing such worship to Christ’s Humanity. Nobody 
did. ‘That question is not even mentioned. In Cyril’s day, the Co-substancers, 
that is, the Synousiasts, came the nearest to Kenrick’s notion, but their error 
was not the same, for though z# fact they gave the same sort of worship to 
Christ’s Humanity that they did to His Divinity, nevertheless they did not in- 
tend to, for they alleged that Christ’s Humanity had been absorbed into His 
Divinity, and so what they worshipped in Christ was all God. Cyril condemns 
that sect in some fragments of a work against them which still remain, and are 
translated on pages 363-378 of the Oxford rendering of St. Cyril of Alexandria 
on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 

(2). Cyril makes all worship prerogative to Divinity, and therefore denies it 
to Christ’s Humanity where he is speaking expressly of it: see above, pages 79 
and 225, notes. ‘Those utterances being approved by Ephesus are now necessary 
parts of the faith of the Universal Church. 

(3). To worship Christ’s Humanity with God the Word results in worship- 
ping a Tetrad instead of a Trinity, see above, note on pages 89, 90, 91, 94, I14. 

(4). Cyril teaches that to worship Christ’s Humanity is to adore two Sons, 


page 94, note. 

(5). That it is a thing to shudder at, page gI, note. 

(6). That to worship Christ’s Humanity is to make it a God, pages 82, 83, 85, 
88, 92, 94 and 114, note. So Cyril teaches in his Chris¢ zs One, pages 259, 26c 
of the Oxford translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
Nestorius. 

(7). With reference to the Nestorian plea that they gave but one worship tc 
Christ’s Humanity and Divinity, Cyril teaches that to worship Christ’s Human-. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 339 


X. The Scripture of God says that Anointed has been made 


ity is to out and out insult God the Word, and to give drunkards’ insults to God; 
see in this work above, pages 87, 91, note ; and 


(8). 70 dishonor the mode of the Union, page 86, note ; and 

(9). To deal craftily with the truth, page 86, note: 

(10). Cyril teaches that the worship of Christ’s Humanity is forbidden by 
Scripture, pages 94-96 above, note: 

(11). That it is a γα to corrupt men, page 93, note: 

(12). That itis “ very clear tongue paining stuff’ against God, page 118, 
note: 

(13). That it is a crime to worship Christ?’s Humanity, pages 95, 96, 109, 110, 
note-: the reference on the last two pages proves that that sentiment is now ap- 
proved and embodied in the Definition of the Universal Church in the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council and so must be received: 


(14). That to worship Christ’s Humanity is to be held fast in the meshes of 
Nestorius’ own ill counsel, and to be detected as having fallen into a reprobate 
mind, page 87, note: and 

(15). Is the ancient deceit of creature worship and ‘‘a blasphemous thing,”? 
page 92, note: and 

(16). «4 heresy and calumny against the pious dogmas of the Church, page 
IIo, mote. 

(17). The Nestorian worship of Christ’s Humanity is perverse and brings 
punishment, page go, note. 

(18). Cyril teaches that ifit be right to worship Christ’s Humanity, then the 
Father was inconsistent and wrong for blaming the creature-worshipping Israel- 
ites and the heathen for doing the same thing of worshipping a creature, page 
85, note. 

(19). The utterances of the Universal Church in the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
cil and in the Fifth, in effect condemn all worship of Christ’s Humanity. See 
above pages 108-112. And the two Epistles approved by the Third Council, both: 
of which condemn absolutely and without any limitation the worship of Christ’s 
Humanity, were Cyril’s. 

(20). The Nestorians understood Cyril to deny all worship to Christ’s Hu- 
manity ; see above, pages 112-128, note. 

II. The assertion that ‘‘¢he Church adores the One Person of the Word in 
both Natures,’’ if meant of the Universal Church, is not true, for it most point- 
edly forbids ‘‘ Christ ἐο be worshipped in two Natures,” and anathematizes every 
one who does it; and instead orders all to ‘‘ worship with [but] one worship 
[that is, with divine and absolute worship] God the Word infleshed within His 
own flesh, as the Church of God has received from the beginning.’ See that 
Anathema on pages 110, 111, note, of this volume, above. And for all the Ecu- 
menical Decisions on that matter see pages 108-112. 


940 Act I. of Ephesus. 


High Priest and Apostle (682) of our profession (683), and has 


III. The next quoted expression of Kenrick plainly teaches, after all his 
floundering about, what is in effect the Nestorian relative worship of Christ’s 
Humanity, though, unlike Nestorius, he admits the Hypostatic Union. 


“The flesh of Christ * * * is to be adored not for its own sake, but for 
the sake of the divine Subsistence [that is divine Being, that is God the Word] 
Whom it contains. But it is adored 7: ztse/f, that is to say, itself is worshipped, 
though the adoration is based not on it, but on the Word.” On pages 108-112, 
above, we see how the Universal Church in written utterances has condemned 
all relative worship of Christ’s Humanity, that is, all worship of that per se not 
worshipable Man, because of the per se worshipable Word to whom that Crea- 
ture is related. See also the Nestorian utterances in favor of that error on 
pages 112-128, above, note. The Relative Worship of Christ’s Humanity is 
condemned above most clearly in Cyril’s Longer Epistle, pages 221-224 above. 
And what must be well remembered, that is approved by the Third Ecumenical 
Council, and so stands forever. There Cyril says that ‘7/75 a horrible thing’ 
to co-call the Humanity of Christ, ‘‘God with Him [God the Word) Who has 
taken him’? {the Man. | 


But, IV. Kenrick puts forth the ‘‘Proposition,’’ that 


“ The human nature of Christ is to be adored with oneand the same supreme 
worship of latria with the divine Word with whom it is Hypostatically con- 
joined.” 


Kenrick here refers impliedly to the merely factitions and mediaeval dis- 
tin@tions in worship of Jatria, service, the highest, to be given to God alone, and 
two lower kinds which they allege may be given to creatures, that is, hyperdu/ia, 
more than slavery, given by them to the Virgin Mary, and du/za, slavery, given 
by them to other saints. See under these words in McClintock and Strong’s 
Cyclopaedia, and under /dolatry in Hook’s Church Diétionary, andunder Dulia 
in Staunton’s Ecclesiastical Dictionary. 


But such manufactured to order distinctions to excuse and to foster creature 
worship and image worship are not only utterly unknown to Holy Writ but ab- 
solutely contradictory to it; for in it God proclaims, ‘‘ Zhou shalt bow to the 
Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,’ Matt. iv., 10: and He speaks 
definitely in Isaiah xlii, 8, against all ve/ative worship such as that of Kenrick 
here (for after all his darkening counsel by words without knowledge, Job 
xxxviii, 2, his worship of Christ’s Humanity is merely ve/atzve). For God there 
proclaims, ‘‘ Zam the Lord ; that ἧς my name; and my glory will I not give to 
another, neither my praise to graven tmages.” See St. Cyril’s adducing of 
those passages against the relative worship of Christ’s Humanity in this volume 
on pages 94-96, note. 

Perhaps I should say that relative worship, that is, the relative worship of 
things or created persons, for the sake of God to Whom they were 
supposed by the creature-servers to have some sort of relation, is as old as the 

worship of the golden calf in the wilderness and the calves at Bethel and at 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 341 


offered Himself for us (684), as an odor of a sweet smell to the God and 


Dan. Yet though these were worshipped as relative to Jehovah as His images 
(a purely factitious and. God-forbidden relation, by the way), nevertheless the 
term relative is not used of that idolatry, at least not in Holy Writ. 


The difference then on worshipping Christ’s Humanity between Nestorius 
and his partisans on the one hand, and Kenrick on the other, is little more than 
nominal ; for both, on their own showing, were creature worshippers. Nestor- 
ius, fearful of being called a worshipper of a Man (see note on page 88 above), 
says in the note on page 224 above, ‘‘/ separate the Natures, but I UNITE THE 
BOWING,”’ that is, ‘‘ THE WORSHIP.”’ 


Cyril brands that as ‘‘ very clear tongue-paining stuff against Him ”’ [God]. 
See page 118, note. 

Theodoret, and Andrew of Samosata, Nestorius’ champions, and Cyril’s op- 
ponents, profess like Nestorius, fo unite the worship and glorifying of Christ’s 
Two Natures : see the note on pages 116 and 117 where Theodoret goes so far as 
to say of his party, the Nestorians, 


““ We worship as one Son Him Who took [that is God the Word] and that 
which was taken [that is, His Humanity]. ‘‘We offer but one glorifying, as 
Ihave often said, to the Lord Christ, and we confess the Same One to be God and 
Manat the same time.’’ 


Similarly speaks Andrew of Samosata on page 117, note. See it there, and 
the words of a Nestorian in the note on page 127, where the heretic opposes St. 
Cyril’s prohibition of worship to Christ’s Humanity in his Anathemas III. and 
VIII. 

Pra@tically then, so far as worshipping Christ's Humanity is concerned, 
Kenrick and Nestorius agreed, though on the Incarnation and the Union they 
differed. 

The agreement continues as to understanding certain texts of Scripture in 
dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, Cyril holding that they teach the worship 
of God the Word, Nestorius that they teach the worship of Christ’s Humanity, 
The texts are, Heb. i,6; Philip. ii, 10, and John ix, 38. Strangely enough, Ken- 
rick sides with Nestorius against Cyril as to their meaning, and, like him, claims 
them and other texts for Man-Worship. See on those texts in the /udex of 
Texts in St. Cyril of Alexandria On the Incarnation against Nestorius, and in 
the /ndex to Texts of Holy Scripture in volume I. of Nicaea in this Set. Cyril, 
of course, denies that any text of Holy Writ teaches Man-Worship. 


Kenrick then adduces alleged passages of Ambrose and of Augustine for the 
Worship of Christ’s Humanity. It is enough to reply that, even if they were 
genuine, they are condemned by necessary implication in the two Epistles of St. 
Cyril, which were approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and by the Fifth 
Ecumenical Synod in its Definition and its Anathema IX. He also quotes the 
antecedently anathematized idolater John of Damascus of the eighth century, 
He is welcome to all such witnesses for paganism and opposers of Christ. 


942 Act I, of Ephesus. 


Father. Tf, therefore, any one says that the Word Himself, Who 


The same Kenrick in the Third volume of his 7heologia Dogmatica, page 
232, (Tractat. XI., cap. XII.,) sets forth the Proposition that 


‘‘ Christ is to be adored in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, even outside of 
the Sacramental attion, with the worship of latria, both internal and external.” 
That is plain heresy. It rests on his doctrine of Transubstantiation which asserts 
that after consecration whole Christ, body and blood, soul and Divinity, are in 
the wafer, and in every part of it when broken. 


But as is shown in the note on pages 250-313, above, Cyril teaches that there 
is no real presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the rite, and hence 
there is nothing there to worship, and that the substance of His Humanity is 
not there, and those views were approved by the Third Council of the whole 
Church, East and West; and hence stand forever. And so Kenrick’s views and 
those of the Latin Communion for the worship of Christ’s Humanity are not al- 
lowable, but plainly heretical because Ecumenically condemned by the Third 
Synod. 


So is his worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus which is plain Nestorian 
relative worship of Christ’s Humanity, aseven Kenrick himself is logically forced 
in effect to explain it on pages 260, 261 of vol. II. of his 7heologia Dogmatica. 
He also tells there how when that revived form of Nestorianism arose in the 
seventeenth century, “‘ very many tumults were excited’’ in the Roman Commun- 
ion because of it; and adds that the Roman see “ favored it,’ but that the Ro- 
man ‘‘ Congregation of Rites hesitated in the years 1697, 1727 and 1729, and de- 
cided that tt should abstain from conceding an Officeand a Mass for the Worship 
of the heart, taken in the strict sense. But Clement XIII. approved it in the 
year 1765.” Since that date this new form of Nestorian Man-Worship has gained 
strength in that creature-worshipping Communion. I quote some of the Latin 
of the above of Kenrick ; ‘‘ Animadversio de cultu Cordis Tesu * ὃ * Sep- 
timo decimo exeunte seculo festum Sanctissimi cordis Iesu coepit celebrari, 
unde plurimae enatae suntturbae. Ei favitsedesApostolica * * * MHaeserat 
tamen sacra Rituum Congregatio an. 1697, 1727, et 1729, et abstinendum censuit 
a Concessione Officii et Missae pro cultu cordis proprie sumpti: sed Clemens 
XIII. an. 1765 eum probavit.”’ 


On page 260, volume II. of his Zheologia Dogmatica Kenrick attempts to 
answer three Objections from a Romish standpoint to that worship of a created 
thing, but fails utterly. The first is, ‘‘ Tre human nature of Christ has not 
ceased to be a creature, although it is Hypostatically [that is ‘‘ Swbstancely’’ ] co- 
joined to the Word ; but itis wrong to give supreme worship to a creature.” 

The second is that, ‘‘ 7hercfore the Worship done to the human nature of 
Christ ts relative.”’ 


The third is that ‘‘ Cyril of Alexandria teaches that it 15 wrong to co-adore 
with God the Word, the Man whom He took.’’ 


The first proposition, if amended according to St. Cyril’s doctrine, would 
read at the end, /¢ zs wrong to give any worship to a creature. 


heading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 343 


OT ee EE Ta Me πο ππ τεσσ ep ae ἰδ ΟΝ τΥΝΕΥ 


came out of God, was not made our High Priest and Apostle when 


es ee —ee——e—eeeeeee 


The second exactly expresses Nestorius’ view, and in effect Kenrick’s, for 
in reply to it he admits that Christ’s human nature ‘‘is worshipped, though not on 
tis own account, but on account of the divine Subsistence,” that is God the Word: 
Latin, ‘‘non propter se, sed propter divinam Subsistentiam colitur.’’ Whatever 
verbiage Kenrick may use, and howsoever he may twist and turn, he in fact admits 
that that worship is relative, when he admits that Christ’s human nature “‘is 
worshipped, of on its own account, but on account of the divine Subsistence,” 
that is the divine Being, God the Word, to Whom that nature is related in the 
sense of being His /abernacle (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, John i., 14), or temple, as Epipha- 
nius puts it below. For when aman gives any act of religious service to any 
created person or to any inanimate thing, πο for its own sake, but for the sake 
of God, that is, by the very definition, relative worship. The only object of ab- 
solute worship is Divinity Itself, for He is worshipped not on account of any 
other, but because every act of religious service is prerogative to God alone. 


Kenrick’s reply to the third objection shows utter ignorance of some facts 
involved in the struggle on Man-Worship between Cyril and Nestorius, and is so 
weak therefore, as hardly to deserve notice. He does not seem to have noticed 
the fact that Cyril again and again denies all worship to Christ’s Humanity, 
makes it Tetradism to worship it, and makes all religious service prerogative to 
the Consubstantial Trinity alone ; see notes 183, 580, 581 and 582. 

We come now, B. to show how the Monophysites worshipped Christ's created 
humanity. At the start Ishould do them the justice of saying that they pro- 
fessed, in accordance with St. Cyril’s teachings on Isaiah xlii., 8, and Matt. iv. ΣΟ, 
not to worship Christ’s human nature at all. For Eutyches said, when sum. 
moned by two clerics, the presbyter John and the deacon Andrew, to appear and 
answer for his faith before the local Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, as we 
read in its Act ///, and as John testifies that, ‘‘ Simce the Inman of God the Word, 
that 1s, since the birth of our Lord Jesus Anointed, he [Eutyches] worships 
[but] One Nature, and that the Nature of God Who took flesh and put on a 
Man,’ (Greek, asin tome 20f Harduin. Concil., col. 141, A., μετὰ dé τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν 
Tov Θεοῦ Λόγου, τουτέστι, μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μίαν φύσιν 
προσκυνεῖν, καὶ τάυτην Θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος). 

Compare Hefele’s Hizstory of the Councils of the Church, English translation, 
vol. III., page 192. Further on, after Eutyches had called in question the truth 
of some things (not however his words above) in the Acts, the presbyter John 
aforesaid testifies that Eutyches had really used that language as to worshipping 
but one Nature in Christ : see Harduin. Concilia, tome 2, col. 186, C., and col. 


188, E. 

The Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, before which Eutyches then 
came, had great difficulty in drawing out of him his real opinion on the chief 
thing for which they faulted him, his denial that Christ’s humanity is of the 
same substance asours. He vacillated, and only seemed to endure the asser- 
tion of the consubstantiality of Christ’s humanity with ours when he was forced 


944 Act I. of Ephesus. 

ΠΡ αν ἐκθιλε οὐ τυ τ i ee a Ee 
He was made flesh (685) and a man like us (686); but that another, 
A eS 
by fear of consequences. It was then that, as Hefele writes, ‘‘ The imperial 
Commissioner Florentius * * * asked with precision and insight into the 
matter, Dost thou believe that our Lord, who was born of the Virgin, ts of one 
substance with us, and that after the Incarnation He is ἐκ δύο φύσεων [“‘of two 
Natures’’| or not?”’ 

And Eutyches answered before the Council, ‘‘ 7 confess that before the Union 
our Lord consisted of Two Natures, but after the Union I confess [only] One 
Nature: (Greek quoted on page 202, volume III. of the English translation of 
Hefele’s History of the Councils of the Church, ὁμολογῶ ἐκ δύο φύσεων γεγενῆσθαι τὸν 
Kupiov ἡμῶν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἕνωσιν μίαν Pvor ὁμολογῶ). 


Eutyches therefore not only believed in but One Nature after the Union 
but a@tually worshipped but One Nature. No one faulted him then, or in the 
Robbers’ Council at Ephesus in A. D. 449, or at Chalcedon afterwards in the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council when the proceedings of that local Council of Con- 
stantinople were reviewed, for his assertion that “ d/ter the Inman of God the 
Word, that is, after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, he worshipped only One 
Nature, that is, that of God Who took flesh and puton a Man.” This is a note- 
worthy fact. What they faulted him for was his denial of the doctrine of the 
Two Natures of Christ, and especially his denial of the existence of Christ’s 
humanity after the Union, and his implied assertion, of course, that it had 
either become transubstantiated into Christ’s Divinity, or had been made a 
Third Thing, which was neither Divinity nor Humanity. Of course in either 
case it was no longer consubstantial with ours ; and so he did away with the 
Christian Economy in flesh. Besides, inasmuch as, according to all the 
Orthodox, Christ’s Humanity still remains unchanged, and as Eutyches 
seems to have worshipped all there is of Christ, he was vea//y a worshipper of a 
Man, that is of a creature, and so was, im fact, a creature-worshipper notwith- 
standing his disavowal of it. 


And so all the other Monophysites, who differed from Cyril in transubstan- 
tiating Christ’s human Nature into Divinity after the Union of the Two Natures, 
and by admitting only one Nature after that, and that Divinity alone, and then 
worshipped all of that as God, zz fact worshipped Christ’s unchanged human 
nature as God, and so were as thoroughly J/an-Worshippers as the Nestorians, 
though in a different way. For they didnot, like the Nestorians, worship it vela- 
tively as still human, but adsolutely as God, having been made God, they asserted, 
at the Union of the Two Natures. From Hefele’s summary of that scene it would 
seem that Eutyches held that the body which Christ had at birth ‘‘ was not of the 
same subslance with ours,’ (Hefele id., page 192). According tothe Acts, one had 
well said to Eutyches, ‘‘Zfthou dost notacknowledge two Natures after the Union 
also, then thou acceptest amingling and confusion [of the Natures],’’? Hefeleid., 
page 203. If he had accepted that inference from his premises, he would have 
worshipped not that Logos, all of Whom is ‘‘of one Substance with the Father,” 
as the two Ecumenical Creeds teach, but a Third Something (Tertium Quid), 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 345 


besides Him, a mere man who came out of a woman, [was made 
our High Priest and Apostle]; or if any one says that He 


which is neither wholly God, nor wholly Man, an impossible Mixture of the 
Substance of God, the Creator, with the Substance of a Man, acreature! The 
Fifth Ecumenical Council, following out the teaching of St. Cyril, condemns 
both kinds of Monophysitism, that is, the Transubstantiation of flesh into Divin- 
ity kind, and the mixing up the Two Natures into one Nature kind: for in its 


Anathema IX. it decrees, 


“77 any one to the doing away of the flesh, or to the mixing of the Divinity 
and of the Humanity, asserts the monstrosity of [but] One Nature, that ts, Sub- 
stance of the things [that is, the Two Natures] whzch have come together, and so 
worships the Anointed One, but does not worship with [but] one worship God 
the Word tinfleshed within [or ‘‘with’’] His own flesh, as the Church of 
God has received from the beginning, let such a one be anathema.’ In this Anathe- 
ma we must understand the Synod to mean God the Word by the Anointed One, 
Χριστός, in accordance with the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation of the 
sufferings and the other things of the Man put on, to God the Word who put 
Him on, a doctrine approved by the Universal Church at Ephesus: See above 
in this volume pages 74-104 in the Shorter Epistle; and in the Longer Epistle, 
pages 215-217 where Anointed is explained to be a title of God the Word. 
Compare pages 221-224; and as to Economic Appropriation, pages 224-232, 253, 
254. Cyril in his Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-Born, sections 1, 12, 13, 17, 
19, etc., again shows that by Christ, that is by the Anointed One, we must 
understand God the Word, in accordance with the doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation. Compare pages 185, 208, 210, 211, 230 of the Oxford 
translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
Nestorius. On that do¢trine see especially the language of St. Athanasius, 
quoted by St. Cyril with approval, which teaches that it is necessary to avoid 
what he terms ‘Zdolatry’’ by worshipping ‘‘a comman Man,” thatis, as he there 
explains, Christ’s mere Humanity by invoking it. See also, under Economic 
Appropriation in the General Index to volume I. of Nicaea in this Set, and 
under that expression in the Index to this volume. 


That there were Monophysites, who held to the Transubstantiation of the 
flesh of the Man put on by God the Word into His Divinity, so that it became 
Consubstantial with It, is clear from what St. Cyril writes against the Synousiasts, 
that is, Co-suwbstancers, as he is given on pages 368-372, id., for he says, 


‘“‘ For come, let us with acute eye of the understanding investigate the idea 
of the Confusers. They say that His flesh has been changed (I know not how) 
into consubstantiality with God the Word.’? Then Cyril refutes that error as 
doing away with the saving Economy of redemption. Just before, in the same 
work, he shows that Christ’s Divinity can not be changed into flesh, and that, 
on the other hand, His flesh can not be changed into His Divinity. 


346 Act I. of Ephesus. 


offered Himself as an offering for Himself also, and not rather for 
us alone, for He Who knzew no sin (687) needed no offering, let 
him be anathema (688). 


On page 372, he refers to some of those heretics who seem not to have held 
to the Transubstantiation of Christ’s flesh into His Divinity, but to a mingling 
or mixture of thetwo Natures; for he writes, 


“ But haply they will say that the flesh did not wholly depart from being 
what it was, but that it was, as it were, immingled with God the Word unto a 
natural oneness.’ ‘Then he proceeds to refute that error as an impossibility. 


To conclude, as to the One Natureite’s doctrine as to worshipping the 
Humanity of Christ. Whether they held to its transubstantiation into the Div- 
inity of the Word, or to the mixing of both Natures together, since they wor- 
shipped all of Christ after the Union, as God, (though 1722 fact, according to the 
dorine of the Universal Church in the Fourth Ecumenical Council, it still 
remains flesh and an entire humanity consubstantial with our flesh and our 
humanity), thereforethey were, 77 fact, worshippers ofa Man, that ts, Creature- 
Worshippers. 

C. Wecome now to state how St. Cyril, and the Universal Church follow- 
ing him, differed from the Nestorians on the one hand and from the Monophy- 
sites on the other as to worshipping the humanity of Christ. 


On this there are two opinions, of which we have treated in this volume, in 
note 183, pages 79-128, andin note 582, pages 225, 226. We can only summarize 
regarding them here. We hope, if God will, to publish a large amount of 
niatter from the Fathers, from heretics, and from others on that general topic of 
Man-Worship, that is, of course, of Creature-Worship, in a special Dissertation 
onthattheme. For the present we shall content ourselves with giving both 
opinions without expressing a final opinion ourselves. 


The first opinion 1s that Cyril worshipped in Christ only His Divinity, and 
regarded all worship of His Humanity as Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), that 
ts, Creature-Worship, and therefore as forbidden by Almighty God in His Holy 
Word, and that that dottrine of Cyril in his Two Epistles and in Anathema 
VIII. in the Longer of them has been approved by the Third Ecumenical Synod, 
and that the same teaching 15 incorporated into the Definition of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council, and into tts Anathema LX; so that his doéirine ts now that of 
the whole Church, and whosoever contradiéts tt ts a heretic. 


The second opinion 1s that St. Cyril worshipped the Humanity of Christ 
and God the Word together, though in a different way from the manner in 
which the Nestorians did tt, and in a different manner from the way in which 
the Monophysites did it, and his opinion, being approved by the Third Council 
and the Fifth, is now the doctrine of the Universal Church. 

To put the matter in a clear way and to bring out the contrast better, we 
will parallelize the three views as to worshipping the Humanity of Christ under 
each of the two opinions aforesaid, beginning with OPINION 1. 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 


347 


Der. 


If any one does not acknowledge that the flesh of the 


The Nestorian. 


Both Natures in Christ 
-are to be worshipped, His 
Divinity absolutely, His 
Humanity relatively only. 
Each Nature is separate, 
and yet the worship to 
both is to be united. 


The Orthodox. 


One only of Christ’s 
Two Natures is to be wor- 
shipped, that is, the Div- 
inity, and that absolutely. 
As an old writer puts it, 
‘© There are Two Natures 
in Christ —one Divine 
and to be bowed to, and 


The Monophysite. 


There is only One Na- 
ture in Christ since the 
Union, that is, the Divine, 
and it alone is to be wor- 
shipped. But the Orthodox 
reply that, zz fact, how- 
ever, Christ’s human 
nature does remain, and 


one human and not to be 
bowed 


therefore, in worshipping 
all of Christ as God abso- 
solutely, the One-Nature- 
ite was in fact a Creature- 
Worshipper. 


The arguments for the first opinion are as follows: 


(1). Cyril again and again makes the most common act of religious service, 
bowing, (used by him for every act of religious service), prerogative to God, and 
that, too, when he is contending against the Nestorian worship of Christ’s 
created humanity. I give two examples out of all: 


In the long note 183, on pages 79-128, and in note 582, page 225, in this 
volume, we have seen that St. Cyril of Alexandria makes all worship of the Son 
to be given to His Divinity only in accordance with His understanding of Holy 
Writ, for on pages 79, 80, he condemns the Nestorians for insulting the flesh put 
on by God the Word by worshipping it, and adds that “ /¢7s a thing fit and 
obligatory to worship the Divine and ineffable Nature alone, πρέποντος μόνῃ τ 
Θείᾳ τε καὶ ἀποῤῥήτῳ φύσει τοῦ προσκυνεϊσύαι δεῖν. 

And so on page 225, Cyril proves that the Son must be God, because dow- 
ing, an act of religious service, is given to Him in Hebrews i., 6, which makes 
against the worship of His created human nature: 


‘‘And besides, He is to be bowed to by the holy angels, and that too when 
THE RIGHT TO BE BOWED TO BELONGS TO AND BEFITS GOD ALONE. How then 
is Christ not God, seeing that He ts bowed to even in Heaven?’ See the Greek 
on pages 225 and 226. See also the contexts of those two passages above. 


But if it could be proved that St. Cyril bowed to, that is worshipped Christ’s 
Humanity, the Nestorians could at once have replied: Your facts and your 
logic are decidedly weak. Fora point involved is whether Christ’s Humanity 
is worshipable or not. We Nestorians sayit is. You (Cyril and the Orthodox) 
say it is not, and you prove that it is not decause all religious bowing is prerog- 
ative to God. But you yourselves bow to Christ’s Humanity with the Word, that 
is, you worship with one worship the Man, that is, as you admit, a creature, with 
the uncreated Word. So that you violate your own principle that all acts of 
religious service, howing, prayer and the rest are prerogative to Almighty God 


948 Act 7. of Ephésus. 


Lord is life-giving, and is the own flesh of the Word Himself, Who. 


alone. And though, in your VIIIth Anathema, you anathematize us for co- 
bowing to a Man, that is, Christ’s Humanity, with God the Word, you yourselves. 
do the same. And so, though we differ as to the Incarnation of the Logos, 
nevertheless we both agree in worshipping a creature, Christ’s humanity. But 
the fact is, no Nestorian charges him with such inconsistency. Indeed, Eutherius 
of Tyana quotes that part of Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., and avers 
that it proves that Cyril did not worship Christ’s Humanity, for he writes, \ 

« But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, and takes away due adoration 
[from it] as he [Cyril of Alexandria] has commanded [us to do] for he says, 

‘If any one presumes to say that the Man taken [by God the Word] ought to be 
co-adored with God the Word and to be co-glorified with Him, let him be anath- 
ema.’’’ See the Latin translation on page 121 above, note. The Greek is lost. 

(2). In accordance with that doctrine that all religious worship is preroga- 
tive to God, Cyril teaches that Zo worship Christ?’s Humanity by bowing, and, by 
necessary implication, by any other act of religious service, is to make that 
creature God, and a sort of Fourth Person after the Trinity, and in brief to 
turn the Trinity into a Quaternity. For above, on pages 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 
86, 87, 88, and 89, he condemns Nestorius for relatively co-worshipping Christ’s. 
humanity with his Divinity, as serving ‘‘that which by Nature is not God”? 
(page 84), as making a creature God along with the Father, a new invention 
(page 85); and says that if God the Father has authorized such creature-worship he 
has wrongly blamed the heathen for committing the error of worshipping crea- 
tures (page 85); and St. Cyril most pointedly and aptly condemns Nestorius, 
“the Man-Worshipper,”’ for deeming it ‘‘a worthy thing to honor with [but] one 
worship those things so unlike each other in Nature, and parted as regards 
their mode of being by incomparable differences. For tf thou put about a horse 
the glory of a man, wilt thou do anything praiseworthy 5. Wault thou not rather 
out and out insult the superior being by dragging down his better nature into 
dishonor’? (pages 86 and 87). This is plain and strong language, For Cyril 
here clearly teaches that the Nestorians’ plea that they united the worship of the 
two Natures was an unworthy thing, that inasmuch (as he teaches above), as all 
worship is prerogative to God, therefore to give to the human Nature of Christ 
the act of worship here specified in the Greek, that is bowing, and by implica- 
tion any other act of religious service, be it prayer, prostration, standing, 
incense, or any other, is as far from being ‘‘prazseworthy”’ as to “put about a 
horse the glory of a man’’ would be praiseworthy, (an act which all at once see 
to be absurd), and is to ‘‘out and out insult the superior being by dragging 
down his better nature into dishonor; that is, to give to a mere creature, 
Christ’s human nature, God’s prerogative of worship, by any act of religious 
service whatsoever, is to ‘‘out and out insult the superior being,’ (God the 
Word, or the Father, or all the Trinity in this case), ‘‘ dy dragging down His 
better Nature into dishonor.” Surely nothing can be plainer against worship- 
ping the created hunian nature of the Son, and for confining all worship of Him 
to His Divinity. 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorvus. 349 

RRS Taso ar ee Bae ae lee ean eee ee τε ἐν Εν τὴ τορος 
came out of God the Father, but [regards it] as the flesh of some 
ΒΝ ECE Ee το Ὁ EES RS SAE a Ξσξξξα 
Following out that teaching Cyril chides Nestorius as ‘“‘ caught and proven 

to be A WORSHIPPER OF A MAN,” and says of him that, ‘Falling away from 
the road to whatis right, he hastens along his perverse way, and out and out 
proclaims two Gods, One who ts such in Nature and in reality, thatis, the Word 
who has come out of God the Father, and another besides Him who 15 co-named 
God with Him”? (page 88); and writes of him that he ‘‘adds a worshipped Man 
to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, and 15 not ashamed,” so giving usa 
Tetrad, that is, a Four, that is, a Quaternity to worship, instead of a Trinity; 
and tells him plainly on page 90, ‘‘ Zhou art confessedly A WORSHIPPER OF A 
Man, and we will say to thee, Zhou shalt eat the fruits of thy labors (Isaiah 111., 
10], and being hard and spurning admonition, go alone on the perverted way.”’ 


Then Cyril professes his own view and that of the Orthodox that the Trinity 
alone is to be worshipped. For we must remember that, by ‘‘One Lord Jesus 
Christ”? below, St. Cyril means only God the Word, as he explains in his 
Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-born, se&tions 1, 3, 13, εἴς. ; they are in English 
in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
Nestorius, pages 185, 188 and 200; compare on Man-Worship page 230, id. I 
quote Cyril’s profession on page 90 above of what he and the Orthodox wor- 
shipped, which follows, without any break, his reproach to Nestorius above of 
being ‘‘a worshipper of a Man” (page 90): 

‘“‘But we, seeking out the pious and blameless path of the holy Fathers, and 
being very well instructed in both the Apostolic and Gospel Writings [the Epis- 
tles, and Acts, and Revelations, and the Gospels], will honor together with the 
God and Father, and the Holy Ghost, the one Lord Jesus Christ, with but one 
worship, through Whom and with Whom to the God and Father, together with 
the Holy Ghost, be glory forever; Amen.”’ 

So also on pages 91-94, in no less than three passages, Cyril charges Nes- 
torius’ denial of the Incarnation, and his worship of Christ’s humanity as result- 
ing in Tetradism, that is, in worshipping our; that is, 1, God the Father, 2, 
God the Word, 3, God the Holy Ghost, and 4, the mere created Humanity of 
Christ; instead of theConsubstantial Trinity alone, that is, I, God the Father, 2, 
God the Word, and 3, God the Holy Ghost; and so as issuing in creature wor- 
ship, the ancient snare; for example, on page 91, Cyril tells him that by such 
denial and by representing Christ’s humanity as worshipped in heaven, he 
(Nestorius) has ‘‘ exhibited to us @ mew God, as a sort of a Fourth God,’’ [or ‘‘a 
sort of Fourth Person’’] after the Holy Trinity. And he asks him, ‘‘ Hast thou 
not shuddered [at the thought of worshipping] @ Common Man, when thou 
contrivedst the worship to that creature? Are we then held fast in the ancient 
snares [of creature-worship] ? Has the holy multitude of the spirits above been 
deceived with us, and has it given drunkards’ insults to God” [that is, by wor- 
shipping Christ’s humanity in heaven, as Nestorius asserted]. 

On page 92, Cyril asks Nestorius, 

«« Since we have been ransomed from the ancient deceit (the sin of worship- 


350 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
nn 
other one besides Him, [which other besides Him has been] conjoined 
ES 
ping creatures, the sin of the heathen], avd have refused, AS A BLASPHEMOUS 
THING, TO WORSHIP THE CREATURE, why dost thou whelm us again in THE 
ANCIENT SINS AND MAKE US WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN”? [that is, of Christ’s 
created humanity, which, though it be the best and highest of all mere creatures, 
is not to be worshipped]. 


On the same page Cyril tells Nestorius that, according to his do¢trine of 
worshipping Christ’s humanity, the logical outcome is that ‘‘.4 recent and late 
God has appeared to the world, and that he has the glory of a Sonship which 
“has been acquired from without as ours also has, and that he glories in certain 
adulterous quasi honors [for Holy Writ teaches that it is spiritual adultery to 
worship a creature, Jerem. 111., 9, and Ezek. xxiii., 37, and to honor any crea- 
ture with worship is not true honor], so that it is now THE WORSHIP OF A ΜΑΝ 
and nothing else, and A CERTAIN MAN IS ADORED WITH THE HOLY TRINITY, @s 
well by us as by the holy angels.” 

On page 94, Cyril tells Nestorius, 

“Thou darest also to clothe in the Master’s forms him whom thou sayest to 
be a Man from Mary, and who at first was not at all different from us nor su- 
perior to us, but afterwards by much effort merited the name and the divine 
glory of the Son, that is, after he had come out of the womb. Therefore, 
ACCORDING TO THY OPINION, there are Two Sons, and CHRIST IS A NEw GOD 
who was endowed with supernatural honor from God somewhat more than the 
rest of the creatures; so that He [God the Word] is CO-ADORED WITH A MERE 
MAN; even that Man who, in the course of time, and only towards the end [of 
his earthly career] got possession of glory and was made A COMPLEMENT OF THE 
TRINITY AND IN NATURE EQUAL ΤῸ IT.” 


(3). Cyril again and again teaches that Scripture forbids us to worship 
Christ’s humanity. He especially quotes Psalm lxxx., 9, Septuagint, (our lxxxi., 
9,) the Greek Version which be used; Isaiah xlii., 8; and Matthew iv., 10. I have 
treated of that point in the note on pages 94, 95, 96. See also note 183 passim. 


(4). Cyril, in his Epistle to John of Antioch, which was approved by the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council, writes to him, ‘‘ But that we everywhere follow the 
opinions of the holy Fathers, and especially those of our blessed and all-well- " 
famed Father Athanasius, and therefore refuse to be carried away from them in 
any thing at all, let thy holiness be persuaded, and let none of the others 
doubt.”’ 

And we have shown, on pages 98 to 102 of note 183 above, that Athanasius 
opposes all worship of Christ’s humanity, which Cyril also must have done if he 
followed Athanasius, as he professed to. For on page 98 above, Athanasius 
writes, 

‘CWE DO NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE. GOD FORBID! FOR SUCH AN ERROR 
AS THAT BELONGS TO THE HEATHEN AND TO THE ARIANS. Lut we bow to the 
Lord of the creation Who has put on flesh, that ts, to the WORD OF GOD.”’ 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 351 


to Him in dignity (689), that is, as having a divine indwelling only 


On pages 98 and 99 he speaks of worshipping the Word, who created the 
Universe (John i., 1-4), in His human body, “‘as 7 a created temple.” 


On page 99 he lays down the principle that ‘‘ Zhe creature does not worship 
a creature.”’ 

Andon page 100 he proceeds as follows to rebuke those who charged 
Christians with being worshippers of a Man, 


“‘ And let them know that though we bow to the Lord in flesh, nevertheless 
we do not bow to a created thing, but to the Creator who put on the created body, 
as we have said before.”’ 


So on the same page in what I judge to be the true reading of a lacerated 
passage, Athanasius says of Christ’s human body, 


“ΤῊ 15 NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED ”’ (οὐ προσκυνητόν). 


On page 95 Cyril again refers to the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity 
as ‘‘ THE CRIME OF WORSHIPPING A MAN.”’ For he writes: 


‘Tf Christ is the end of the Law and the Prophets [Rom. x., 4; Matt. xi., 
13; Luke xvi., 16], but is a [mere] God-inspired Man, would it not be permitted 
us to say that the end of the prophetic preachings has brought THE CRIME OF 
WORSHIPPING A MAN UPON US?”’ 


(5). If it be replied that neither Cyril, nor the Third Ecumenical Council, 
which approved his Two Epistles to Nestorius, in which he and they condemn 
Nestorius’ worship of Christ’s humanity, separate from God the Word, intended 
to condemn the worship of the two Natures together, but only the humanity 
when separate from the Divinity, those who worship the Logos only in the Son 
reply that the utterances of St. Cyril against all worship of Christ’s humanity 
because itis a creature, and his quoting such passages as the Septuagint of Psalm 
lxxx., 9, Isaiah xlii., 8, and Matt. iv., το, as against any and all worship of it or 
of any other creature (pages 94-96 above), and the absence of any limitation of 
his words to the Man-Worship of the Nestorians, aye, his unlimited and unmodi- 
fied condemnation of that worship of Christ’s humanity and all other Man-Wor- 
ship and all Creature-Service do not permit us to believe that he deemed any 
form of worshipping Christ’s humanity or any other Man-Worship to be allow- 
able. 

Indeed, in the Shorter Epistle, pages 79-81 above, Cyril, speaking from the 
standpoint of an Orthodox Man, teaches that we do not “‘dow ἐο [that is, do not 
“worship? | a Man together with the Word, lest that thing be secretly brought 
in for a phantasm.”” 


And in the Longer Epistle, pages 221, 222 and 223, Cyril denies that he 
bows to, that is, worships Christ’s humanity, and teaches that ‘‘ Anointed Jesus, 
Son, Sole-Born, is understood to be [only] One, and ts honored with [but] onz 
WORSHIP WITHIN HIS OWN FLESH.”’? And by Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, 
is meant God the Word within His own flesh as St. Cyril teaches in his Scholia 
on the Inman of the Sole-Born, seétions 1, 3, 13 (pages 185, 188, 200, 212; com- 
pare pages 229, 230, and 40, 41). 


352 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


(690) and does not, on the contrary, acknowledge it as life-giving, as we 


And, what serves as a clincher on this whole matter, Anathema IX. of the 
Fifth Council of the whole Christian World curses every one who says that 
“© The Anointed One (τὸν Χριστόν) ts to be worshipped IN Two Natures,” and 
states that by that ‘‘assertion TWO WORSHIPS are brought in, one peculiar to 
God the Word [that is, the Ged-Worship, that is, the Worship to God], and the 
other peculiar to the Man”’ [thatis, the Man-Worship, that is, the worship toa 
Man, acreature]. And with this Decision agree the other Ecumenical Defini- 
tions, which are found grouped together in the part of note 183 which is on 
pages 108-112 above. In fact, in whatever way Christ’s humanity is worshipped, 
the act is, of course, by that very fact Man-Worship, that is, Creature-Worship, 
and is therefore forbidden by Christ Himself in Matthew iv., το, ‘‘ Thou shalt 
bow to the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE.”’ 


Moreover, if Cyril had worshipped the humanity of Christ, he would have 
met a crushing retort when he rebuked the Nestorians as Man-Worshippers and 
Creature- Worshippers for that error, and as following their ““Jerverse way”’ with 
the certainty of eating of the fruit of that fault (pages 88 and go). They could have 
justly turned on him and reproached him for his inconsistency in doing the same 
thing in a different way. But they did not, a fact that shows that they could 
not find him guilty of it. What they did fault him for was for not doing it. So 
speaks Eutherius of Tyana below. And the language of the Nestorian cham- 
pions, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus, in response to Cyril’s 
Anathema VIII. takes it for granted that he did not co-worship Christ’s Human- 
ity with His Divinity, and that they so understood him to teach in his Anathema 
VIII. Andin order to do away, so far as they could, his rebuke of them for 
their worshipping a creature, Christ’s Humanity, they professed to-unite the 
worship, that is to worship both natures together with but one worship: so Nes- 
torius attempts to excuse his Man-Worship on page 86 above, so does Theodoret 
on page 116, and Andrew of Samosata on page 117. Cyril well scores that error 
on pages 86, 87, as an insulting the Superior Nature in Christ, that is, His Divin- 
ity, by dragging It down ‘‘ INTO DISHONOR,”’ thatis, by giving what is preroga- 
tive to It, an act of religious service, bowing, to a mere creature. 


And the same thing could be said of St. Cyril, ifhe had worshipped Christ’s 
Humanity, by bowing, the act specified in his Anathema VIII., or by any other 
act. 


(6). Zhe Nestorians, who should have known St. Cyril’s doctrine, under- 
stood him to refuse all worship to Christ?’s Humanity; see pages 112 to 128 
in note 183 above, especially page 121, where the bitter and irreconcilable Nes- 
torian, Eutherius of Tyana, speaks, and pages 125, 126, where either he, or 
Nestorius’ fellow-heretic, Theodoret, utters his voice. On page 121 Eutherius 
writes, 


“ But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, AND TAKES AWAY DUE 
ADORATION [from it] AS HE [Cyril of Alexandria] HAS COMMANDED [us to do], 
Sor he says: 


Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 353 


have said (691), because it has been made the own flesh of the Word 


“77 any one presume to say that the Man taken [by God the Word] ought 
to be co-adored with God the Word and to be co-glorified with Him, let him be 
anathema.’ ‘Thisis a reference to St. Cyril’s Anathema VIII. below, which 
was approved by the whole Church at Ephesus. See the Latin rendering of the 
above passage of Eutherius on page 121 above, note. 


On pages 125 and 126, the Nestorian speaker, whether it be Eutherius or 
Theodoret, strives to excite hatred against St. Cyril because he refused to wor- 
ship Christ’s humanity, and blasphemously goes so far as to ascribe St. Cyril’s 
do@rine on Man-Worship to the devil!!! I quote: 


‘Of how much hatred therefore are they deserving who, for the sake of 
their own evil belief [or ‘‘through their own evil belief’’] strive to envy us on 
account of so many and so great benefits [of Christ], and forbid the [human] 
race to be honored [in Christ’s Humanity], and separate the flesh which the 
Word in a marvellous manner conjoined to Himself, and withstand Paul when 
he cries, what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder [Matt. xix., 6] 
and who let out their tongues to the devil for pay to hide the things which they 
have done against Him! For there is nothing so heavy and unbearable to him 
as to see the nature [of man] which had been led astray by him, lifted up in the 
First Fruits [Christ’s humanity he means, with referense to I. Cor. xv., 20, 23], 
by the King of the Heavens, and living nobly and above praise, and made super- 
ior to death, and having destroyed his tyranny, and been taken up into heaven 
and deemed worthy of the glorious seat, and recognized by all the creation as 
One in the supreme conjunction with Him who took him up, and as ONE WITH 
Him [God the Word] IN THE INDIVISIBLE SHARING OF THE GLORY [and] oF THE 
DIGNITY WHICH IS ABOVE ALL, EXPRESSION.’’ See the Greek of part of the 
above on page 126. This Nestorian denouncer of St. Cyril’s God-alone-worship, 
shows his ignorance of Holy Writ by ascribing Christ’s own words in Matt. xix., 
6, to Paul. 

We come now to the 2nd opinion as to whether St. Cyril worshipped Christ’s 
Humanity or not. It ts that he worshipped it and God the Word together 
though ina different way from that in which the Nestorians did it, and in 
a different way from that in which the Monophysites did it, and that his doing 
so is approved by the Third World Synod and the Fifth. And so (a) those who 
hold that opinion would hold that the erdin the following expression in Anathema 
IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council means w7th in the sense of together with 
(σύν), not wzth in the sense of 2722 the midst of, that is, within : μιᾷ προσκυνήσει τὸν 
Θεὸν Λόγον σαρκωθέντα μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς προσκυνεῖ. So that they would translate 
it, ‘‘ worships with [but] one worship, God the Word infleshed, together with His 
own flesh.’? For although lexicographers like Liddell and Scott give the radical 
sense of μετά to be ‘‘72 the midd/le,’’ and though the first meaning given there of 
μετά with the genitive is ‘‘7 the midst of, among, between, with plur. Nouns,” 
of which instances there follow, and though Robinson in his Greek and English 
Lexicon of the New Testament connects μετά with μέσος, which he defines 


354 Act I. of Ephesus. 


who has power to give life to all things (692), let him be anath- 
ema (693). 


“(Kindr. with μετάλ mid, middle, midst,’ and gives its first meaning with the 
genitive to be ‘‘with, 7. e. mid, amid, among, in the midst of, as where one is. 
said to sit, stand, or be with or in the midst of others with gen. plur. of pers. or 
thing,” nevertheless it does not generally mean in the midst of or within, but. 
with in the sense of ‘‘ together with, along with.” 

Both Robinson and Liddell and Scott give examples of each of those two. 
meanings. 

(6). Cyril commonly uses μετά with the genitive in the sense either of wzth 
or of together with. 

In response to these objections, one holding to the view that in the Son His. 
uncreated Divinity alone is to be worshipped, not at all His mere created Hum- 
anity, would say, 

1. That it is admitted on all hands that μετά with the genitive, in Cyril's 
assertion that God the Word is to be bowed to μετὰ σαρκός, primarily means, ‘77 
the midst of,’’ that is, ‘‘ within flesh,’’ and so that the words of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Synod in its Anathema IX., μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, primarily mean, 
«« within His own flesh.”’ 


2. Itis admitted also that sometimes e7d with the genitive means the same 
as σύν with the dative, that is, wztz. So Robinson in his Greek Lexicon of the 
New Testament defines σύν with the dative; it may sometimes mean /ogether 
with, though not always. Since, therefore, 3, the mere expression μετά with the 
genitive, as in μετὰ σαρκός, may mean either ‘‘wzthim flesh,’ wzth flesh, or 
together with flesh, in those expressions where Cyril and the Fifth Ecumenical 
Synod use that language, we must look to the fats connected with the use of the 
expression by them to determine the exact sense in which they used it. 


And as to Cyril’s use of the words where he speaks of the worship of 
God the Word μετὰ σαρκός ; 

A. It shows plainly that he used them in the sense of within flesh, and in 
such a sense as to exclude Christ’s humanity from being worshipped at all. 


(1), because when speaking definitely on the Two Natures he makes wor- 
ship prerogative to Christ’s Divine Nature alone; see in proof page 79, note 183, 
and page 225, note 582, and page 87, note. 


(2), he teaches that to worship Christ’s humanity is to make it a God; page 
85, note. 

(3), To worship Christ’s humanity, he says, is to worship a Tetrad, that is, 
a Four, instead of a Consubstantial Trinity; the Trinity being the Father, His 
coeternal Logos, and His coeternal Spirit, and the Four being those same. 
Three, and a mere creature besides, that is, the mere Man put on by God the 
Word; the worship of that Man being branded by Cyril again and again as 
ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is, the worship of a Man; see above note on pages 87, 88, 89, 
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, etc., and as contrary to Scripture texts, of which he 


Reading of Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 305 


XII. If any one does not acknowledge that the Word of God 


specifies Psalm lxxx., 9, Septuagint, Isaiah xlii., 8, and Matt. iv., 10; see page 


103, note. } 


Now, (4), whether men worship Christ’s Humanity with God the Word, or 
separate from Him, the act is, as all admit, the worship of a Man (av6pwrodarpeia), 
that is the worship of a creature (κτισματολατρεία), and hence the denunciations: 
and condemnations uttered by St. Cyril apply to both. There is, of course, a 
point of difference, and a very important one between the Nestorian who wor- 
ships Christ’s humanity separate from His divinity, andthe person who worships 
that humanity and the Word as united in the true Inman-Union. But yet the 
fact remains that both are creature-servers contrary to Christ’s Law in Matt. iv., 
10, according to Cyril. Indeed the twenty utterances of Cyril on pages 338, 339, 
note above, apply to both. I have readin some author who was not perfectly 
informed as to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the satirical remark 
that he did not understand ‘‘their sense or rather nonsense.” And if we under- 
stand the struggle between Cyril and Nestorius not to involve the fundamental 
and all-important topic of creature worship, we take from the controversy one 
of its greatest decisions and lessons, that is, that we must worship God alone 
(Matt. iv., 10); a decision and lesson most valuable for the justification of the Re- 
formers of the sixteenth century against the worse than Nestorian idolatry and 
creature service of Rome. For the relative worship of Christ’s humanity by Nes- 
torius, and the worship of the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist by 
his supporter and fellow-heretic Theodoret, were relative, according to their idea, 
to God the Word Himself. Whereas Rome in the middle ages and since has 
worshipped not only Christ’s humanity, but also lower creatures, such as the 
Virgin, martyrs, and other dead saints, angels, etc., and even dead men’s bones 
and other relics of them, their pictures, their graven images, etc., relatively to 
those mere creatures, which is surely a lower sort of relative worship than the 
Nestorian worship of Christ’s perfect humanity, the highest of all mere crea- 
tures, relatively to God the Word. 


Nevertheless, even what all admit, the condemnation of the worship of the 
humanity of Christ separate from His Divinity, under the penalty of anathema 
in Cyril’s Anathema VIII. which was approved by the whole Church in the 
Third Ecumenical Synod, is much more (ὦ fortiori), a necessarily implied con- 
demnation, under the penalty of anathema by the whole Church in that Council, 
of the worship of any creature less than Christ’s perfect humanity, be it the 
Virgin Mary, any other dead saint, any archangel orangel, or any other creature 
whomsoever, and much more such a condemnation of any thing still lower, be it 
relics, any image painted or graven, any cross, any communion table, or altar, 
or any thing else. 


5. If one makes Cyril and the Orthodox worshippers of a creature, Christ’s 
humanity, he reduces, so far as Man-Worship alone is concerned, the difference 
between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Universal Church on the one hand, and 
Nestorius on the other to a mere logomachy, as indeed some not fully informed 


356 Act I, of Ephesus. 


suffered in flesh (694), and was crucified in flesh (695), and tasted 


Latins and Protestants have made it, and so, in effect, favors and defends Nes- 
torius and his creature worship and other heresies, and does injustice to the Third 
Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth, he is condemned by them both. See their 
canons, and especially canons XI., XII., XIII. and XIV. of the Fifth and the 
Definition of which they form part. 


6. Cyril seems to me in a passage in the part of a note on page 84 above to 
teach the worship of God the Word alone μετὰ σαρκός in the sense of ‘‘ within 
flesh,” for he dire@tly after blames Nestorius for co-worshipping Christ’s 
humanity with God the Word. And so again and again, as for example on 
pages 85 and 86, etc. But still clearer is his language as quoted by his Nestor- 
ian opponent, Andrew of Samosata, on page 97 above, on this very Anathema 
VIII. For Andrew there says of Cyril, 


‘Tn addition to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearnedly and very 
unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the One and the Same Son 
together with His flesh (ἐπέσκηψε τοῖς σὺν τῇ σαρκὶ προσκυνεῖν τῷ Evi Kai τῷ αὐτῷ Yio 
βουλομένοις), as though the [preposition] μετά [with or “ τυτέλτ7ι""] were some- 
thing other than the preposition σύν [“‘dogether with” and “‘co’’] which very 
assertion he himself has made, as has been said before, by his saying that He 
[God the Word] must be bowed to within [or ‘‘with’’] flesh and by forbidding 
His flesh to be co-bowed to with His Divinity,’? (λέγων αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρκὸς δεῖν 
“προσκυνεῖσθαι, ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσκυνείσθαι TH Θεότητι τὴν σάρκα.) 


For farther instances of Cyril’s condemnation of co-worshipping α man 
with the Word (οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπον συμπροσκυνοῦντες TH Λόγῳ), see the Shorter Epistle 
to Nestorius, pages 79-85 above, where we find the σύν; and see further under 
cum, in the Jndex to Volume VI. of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of Cyril. 


(7). The Nestorians, who should have known, understood St. Cyril to deny 
all worship to Christ’s humanity; see pages 112-128 above, note. They tried to 
excite feeling against him on that ground; see above the part of the note on 
pages 121, 122, 125, 126. This fixes the sense in which they understood him to 
use the expression μετὰ σαρκός; for they must have taken him to use it when 
speaking of worshipping God the Word μετὰ σαρκός, in the sense of with flesh, in 
such a way, however, as to exclude His flesh and His humanity from being wor- 
shipped, in other words, in the sense of “" zwzthin flesh.”’ 


These considerations will persuade some to understand St. Cyril and the 
Third Ecumenical Synod with him as condemning any and all worship of 
Christ’s humanity. 


Still, as I have said, I defer for the present any final expression of my own 
opinion, but will speak more fully, if God will, in a special Dissertation on the 
worship of Christ’s humanity, or in a work on Cyril’s XII. Anathemas. 


In some parts of the world, notably in the East, where the study of Greek 
philosophy and logic and rhetoric had produced a trained class of pagan dis- 
puters, the question of the right or wrong of worshipping Christ’s created 
humanity would naturally come up often in the discussions between them and 


heading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 357 


death in flesh (696), and became the first brought forth from among 


the Christians. | For when rebuked for worshipping creatures, their main line 
of reply would be to show, if they could, that Christians also worshipped a crea- 
ture, the humanity of Christ. 

Among Christians themselves and among heretics that topic would natur- 
ally arise again and again. How it was treated by the Apollinarians and by 
some other heretics is told in the part of note 183 which is on pages 103-106 
above. The Nestorians, who arose later than the Apollinarians, seem to have 
all agreed in worshipping Christ’s humanity relatively. But the Monophysites, 
who forsook Eutyches, have developed at different times a number of sects on 
its worship, which, if God will, we will speak of under the times to which they 


belong. 
But, objection (c). Some writers outside of the Alexandrian School, before 
Cyril, held to the worship of Christ’s humanity with God the Word. 


To this I answer that it is freely admitted that that was true of the unsound 
Syrian School, which began with the heretics Diodore of Tarsus, of the fourth 
century, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as by their opponents, the Co-Sub- 
stancers, who were also Syrians, whose error is condemned by the Third Synod 
and the Fifth. If, as is alleged, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo 
held to the worship of Christ’s humanity, they are also included in the same 
condemnation. Fora heretical utterance of any school or any members of any 
school is worse than worthless if condemned by an Ecumenical Synod. This 
has been often too much forgotten, for in the middle ages, men largely laid 
aside the study of the Utterances and Decisions of the God-led Six Councils of 
the whole Church, and substituted for them the mere fallible opinions of indiy- 
idual Fathers and individual writers, and sometimes quoted as Fathers those 
who, on the points quoted, were heretics, for such quoted opinions had been 
condemned by some one or more of the Six Ecumenical Synods, as, for 
instance, the invocation of saints, that is, the creature-worship of Augustine of 
Hippo in his City of God, and the invocation of angels by Ambrose of Milan in 
his De Viduis, cap. IX., section 55 (as quoted in note 3, page 339, Vol. I. of 
Smith’s Hagenbach’s History of Doétrines, N. Y., Sheldon & Co., 1867). Besides 
false and utterly spurious works were often quoted as genuine, as, for instance, 
the False Decretals of Isidore, and many others. The Benedictines in their editions 
of certain Fathers, and other editors, have done some thing to separate the 
Spurious, as well as the doubtful, from the genuine, but the entire and full 
work is still undone. 


Furthermore, the number of perfectly sound men among the Fathers is very 
small, judging soundness by their agreement with the Decisions of the Six 
Ecumenical Councils. Judged by them we must brand some who stand well 
with many as heretics on Creature-Worship. If certain passages ascribed to 
them be genuine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, 
Augustine of Hippo, and others of note, were patrons of creature invocation or 
creature-worship. The proof is found in the excellent and critical articles of 


908 | Act I. of Ephesus 


the dead (697), forasmuch as He is both Lzfe (698) and Life Giver 
(699), as [being] God (700), let him be anathema (701). 


Scudamore on those subjects; the first of which, on ‘‘ Patron Saints and Angels,” 
is in Smith and Wace’s Didtionary of Christian Biography; and the Second on 
‘« Patron Saints,’ is in Smith and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Christian An- 
tiguittes. 

These articles are so valuable and so learned, and especially the first, if the 
quotations in them be genuine, as to merit the doctorate for their author. 


We must as carefully, as zealously and as strenuously oppose the creature 
invocation of Ambrose and of Augustine, so often quoted against the do¢trine 
of the Six Synods on creature-worship, as St. Cyril opposed the Man-worship of 
Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who then stood as high in Syria 
as Ambrose and Augustine now stand among many in the West. The same 
necessity is laid ppon us as upon him in this matter, forsuch men are quoted 
against the doctrine of the Six Councils by creature-worshippers, and so souls 
are led into creature-worship and ruined eternally. If it be said that Ambrose 
did a noble work against Arianism, and Augustine against Pelagianism, I 
answer that Diodore also did a noble work against Arianism, and his 
“disciple,” ‘‘ Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia,”’ is called by his friend Theo- 
doret in Chapter XI,., Book V. of his Ecclesiastical History, “‘ the teacher of all 
the Churches, and the opponent of all the sects of heresy,’ and further on in the 
same chapter, Theodoret states that he ‘‘ zealously opposed the heresies of Arius, 
Eunomius, and Apollinaris.’’ And yet St. Cyril branded them as heretics, to 
warn men against their evil influence for creature-worship. And so we must 
not receive any man’s erring creature-invoking opinion contrary to the faith of 
the Scriptures as defined and interpreted by the Six Sole Synods of that Univer- 
sal Church which Christ has commanded us to hear, if we would not be counted 
“asa heathen man and a publican’? (Matt. xviii., 17.) Cyril met strong oppo- 
sition to his attempt to procure their condemnation, for the Syrians had long 
regarded them as their teachers and were proud of them. Indeed, the whole 
patriarchate of Antioch, the national Church of the Syriac race, stoutly stood up 
for them, and many finally broke off for them and for their errors of Man-Wor- 
ship and of Eucharist Worship from the Universal Church and became 
Nestorians, and maintain their soundness against Cyril and Ephesus till this. 
hour. So, whatever be the difficulties, we must first examine whether the 
passages of Ambrose, Augustine and others, for creature-invocation, be really 
theirs, and if we find that they are, we must anathematize them. In every theo- 
logical seminary there should be a professor to instruct the young men as to the 
errors of each of the Fathers and early writers, and especially those which are 
either expressly or impliedly condemned by the Ecumenical Synods. 


The fact is, the two great lights of the Alexandrian School, Athanasius and 
Cyril, are worth more than all the other writers of the fourth century and the 
fifth put together on the questions of Creature-Worship and Man-Worship, and 
their doctrines on those things being approved by the Six Ecumenical Synods 
are ratified as Scriptural by the Holy Ghost, speaking through the Episcopate 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. . 359 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, said, 
Not only have those things which were sent by Celestine, the most 
holy and most devout Bishop of the Church of the Romans, been 


of the Universal Church, and so are authoritative and binding forever. As 
inspired by the Holy Ghost there is no appeal from them. 


In other words we must, in examining any question, consider first what the 
Scriptures say on it, and then, if there be dispute still as to the meaning of 
Scripture, as there generally is, as for instance on the Divinity of Christ and of 
the Holy Ghost, on the Eucharist, and the worship of Christ’s humanity, on 
papal infallibility and, on creature-worship, we must do what Christ commands in 
Matt. xviii., 17, that is, ‘‘ Hear the Church,’ speaking in the only place where 
the whole of it has ever spoken, that is, in the VI. Ecumenical Synods. 


But suppose the Six Synods have not spoken on some particular point, as, 
for instance, on Infant Communion, what shall we dothen? I answer; if they 
really have not, then take the decision of God’s Word as witnessed to by the 
primitive Church, always, everywhere and by all. That is decisive for it. 


In the Dissertation on the Worship of Christ’s Humanity, many Fathers and 
writers of different opinions will be quoted. There is no room for them here. 


One very important remark should be made in conclusion, and it is that 
whether men hold that Cyril and Ephesus rejected all worship of Christ’s 
humanity, or only condemned the worship of it separate from His Divinity, all 
agree that their decision condemns all worship of any creature less than His 
humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs and other saints, or any archangel, 
or angel, or any other creature whomsoever. For if, asa cleric, I am deposed, 
and if, as a laic, Iam excommunicated, if I give bowing or prayer or any other 
act of religious service to Christ’s perfect humanity, confessedly the highest of 
all mere creatures, much more (a fortiori) am I deposed and anathematized 
if I worship any lesser creature. 

I close on this Anathema VIII. of Cyril and of Ephesus by adding a few 
Passages out of many which are in accordance with tt. 

St. Athanasius says that the leper who was cleansed by Christ (Matt. ix., 
20) ‘‘ worshipped the Creator of the universe [God the Word] as 7m a created 
temple,’ that is, in his human body. The place is found in St. Athanasius’ 
Epistle to Adelphius, se&ion 3 (page 64 of the Oxford translation of his Later 
Treatises and on pages 98, 99, above, note). 

I find the two following passages quoted by Jeremy Taylor in 7he Second 
Part of his Dissuasive from Popery, Book 11., section 6, page 607 of vol. VI. of 
his ‘‘ Works,’’ (London, 1849). 

Cyril of Alexandria, in his 7esaurus, Book II., Chapter I., plainly teaches 
that worship is prerogative to the Divine Nature alone, hence is not to be given 
to any creature. Understood as it reads, it forbids worship to Christ’s humanity, 
for surely that is not Divinity, nor does any one except a Monophysite claim it 
to be Divinity. I quote: 


360 Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 


sent and delivered to the most religious Nestorius himself, but also 


‘‘But no one is ignorant that, BY THE SCRIPTURE, WORSHIP IS TO BE GIVEN 
TO NO NATURE AT ALL EXCEPT THAT OF GoD” (a). 


And again Cyril writes in the same work, 


‘There is [but] ONE NATURE OF THE DEITY, WHICH ALONE OUGHT TO BE 
WORSHIPPED ”’ (ὁ). 


In the Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon which took place in A. D. 312, 313, 
or 315 according to note I, page ΟἹ in the Syriac Documents bound up with 
vol. XX. of the dute Nicene Christian Library ; (compare Hole’s article ‘‘ Hab- 
ibus (2)’’ in Smith and Wace’s Didtionary of Christian Biography), “which are 
presumably of the Ante Nicene age’? (Vol XX., Ante Nic. Christ. Lib., In- 
troductory Notice, page 3), is found the following in the conversation of the 
pagan Roman Governor with the martyr; page 99: 


‘The Governor said, How is it that thou worshippest and honorest a man, 
but refusest to worship and honor Zeus there? 


‘‘Habib said: I worship not a man, because the Scripture teaches me, 
‘Cursed ts every one that putteth his trust in man,’ [Jerem. xvii., 5], but Gop 
who took upon Him a body and became a man, [Him] do I worship and glorify.” 


The following is from the poetic Homily on Habib the Martyr which is by 
Jacob of Sarug, of Century V. and VI., who has been charged with Monophy- 
sitism, but the Anglican Ball’s article on him in Smith and Wace’s Diétionary 
of Christian Biography tells us that it is, ‘‘a charge which Assemani and Ab- 
beloos show to be unwarranted.”’ He gives there the argument for his Ortho- 
doxy. The following from the translation of the Homily, is Cyrillian and Or- 
thodox. It is found on pages 112, 113-115 of the Syriac Documents bound up in 
Vol. XX. of the Ante Nicene Christian Library. I quote: 

But Habib, when questioned, was not afraid, 

Was not ashamed, and was not frightened by the menaces [he heard]. 
Lifting up his voice, he confessed Jesus, the Son of God— 

That he was His servant, and was His priest, and His minister [Or “ deacon’”’]. 
At the fury of the pagans, roaring at him like lions, 

He trembled not, nor ceased [Or ‘‘so as to cease’’] from the confession of 

the Son of God. 
% Χ # * Χ = * Χ Χ 

They taunted him: Lo! thou worshippest a man; 

But he said: A man 7 worship not, 
But God, who took a body and became man: 

Him do I worship, because He 1s God with Him that begat Him. 


(a). Jeremy Taylor’s reference on page 607, vol. VI. of his Works, London, 1849, here is 
** Thesaur., lib. II., c. 1.[tom. II., p. 159 C.—fol. Par. 1604,] et alibi.’ The Latin there reads: 
‘Nemo autem ignorat nulli prorsus nature praeterquam Dei adorationem a Scriptura con- 
tribui.’? He does not give the Greek. 


(δ). Jeremy Taylor’s Works, vol. VI., page 607. The note there is as follows: “πᾶ 
Natura est deitatis quam solummodo adorare oportet, [Ibid., p. 158, c].’’ 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 801 


those which were sent by the most holy and most God-revering 


The faith of Habib, the martyr, was full of light; 
And by it was enlightened Edessa, the faithful [city]. 
The daughter of Abgar, whom Addzus betrothed to the crucifixion— 
Through it is her light, through it her truth and her faith. 
Her king is from it, her martyrs from it, her truth from it; 
The teachers also of [her] faith are from it. 
Abgar believed that Thou art God, the Son of God; 
And he received a blessing because of the beauty of his faith. 
Sharbil the martyr, son of the Edesszeans, moreover said: 
My heart is led captive by God, who became man, 
And Habib the martyr, who also was crowned at Edessa, 
Confessed these things: that he took a body and became man; 
That He is the Son of God, and also is God, and became man. 
Edessa learned from teachers the things that are true: 
Her king taught her, her martyrs taught her, the faith; 
But to others, who were fraudulent teachers, she would not hearken. 
Habib the martyr, in the ear of Edessa, thus cried aloud 
Out of the midst of the fire: 4 man 7 worshtp not, 
But God, who took a body and became man— 
Him do I worship. [Thus] confessed the martyr with uplifted voice. 
From confessors torn with combs, burnt, raised up [on the block], slain, 
And [from] a righteous king, did Edessa learn the faith, 
And she knows our Lord—that He is even God, the Son of God. 
She also learned and firmly believed that He took a body and became man. 
Not from common scribes did she learn the faith: 
Her king taught her, her martyrs taught her; and she firmly believed them: 
And, zf she be calumntiated as having ever worshipped a man, 
She points to her martyrs, who dzed for Him as being God. 
A man 4 worship not, said Habib, 
Because it is written: ‘Cursed 1s he that putteth his trust in a man’ [ Jer. 
XVil. 5]. 
Forasmuch as He is God, I worship Him, yea submit to be burned 
For His sake, nor will I renounce His faith. 
This truth has Edessa held fast from her youth, 
And in her old age she will not barter it away as a daughter of the poor. 
Her righteous king became to her a scribe, and from him she learned 
Concerning our Lord—that He is the Son of God, yea God. 
Addzus, who brought the bridegroom’s ring and put it on her hand, 
Betrothed her thus to the Son of God, who is the Only [-Begotten]. 
Sharbil the priest, who made trial and proof of all gods, 
Died, even as he said, ‘‘ for God who became man.”’ 
Shamuna and Guria, for the sake of the Only [-Begotten], 
Stretched out their necks [to receive the stroke], and for Him died, /foras- 
much as Heis God. 


962 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Cyril, Bishop of the Church of the Alexandrians, and by the Synod 


And Habib the martyr, who was teacher of congregations, 
Preached of Him, that He took a body and became man. 
For a man the martyr would not have [submitted to be) burned in the fire; 
But he was burned ‘‘ for the sake of God who became man.” 
And Edessa is witness that thus he confessed while he was being burned: 
And from the confession of a martyr that has been burned who is he that can 
escape ἢ 
All minds does faith reduce to silence and despise— 
[She] that is full of light and stoopeth not to shadows. 
She despiseth him that maligns the Son by denying that He is God; 
Him too that saith ‘‘ He took not a body and became man.”’ 
In faith which was full of truth he stood upon the fire; 
And he became incense, and propitiated with his fragrance the Son of God. 
In all [his] affli@tions, and in all [his] tortures, and in all [his] sufferings, 
Thus did he confess, and thus did he teach the blessed [city]. 
And this truth did Edessa hold fast touching our Lord— 
Even that He is God, and of Mary became a man. 
And the bride hates him that denies His Godhead, 
And despises and contemns him that maligns His corporeal nature. 
And she recognises Him [as] One in Godhead and in manhood— 
The Only [-Begotten], whose body is inseparable from Him. 
And thus did the daughter of the Parthians learn to believe, 
And thus did she firmly hold, and thus does she teach him that listens to her. 


(680), page 332. It is wonderful how much there is in St. Cyril and St. Atha- 
nasius and others on the worship of Christ’s Humanity. We have a large 
number of quotations, but must defer most of them and put them under Anath- 
ema VIII. of St. Cyril in a work on his XII. Anathemas. The Apollinarian 
controversy before Cyril, and controversy with the Pagans as we see in the case 
of the martyr Habib above, and with the Jews, had brought this matter to the 
fore, as it does still with the same errorists and with the Mohammiedans. It is 
all important therefore for a cleric to know thoroughly the decisions of the Six 
Councils on it, that he may defend the faith of the Universal Church, and his 


own work for it. 


(681), page 337. See Christ’s language in John xvi., 14, 15. He says there 
that ‘all things that the Father hath are mine,” consequently the Spirit also 
Who goes out of the Father alone originally, that is, before the worlds were 
made, but Whom the Son sends as His Vicar and Agent in time. See John xv., 
26. 

Any failure to bring out the fact that it is God the Word who Swéstancely 
indwells the Man put on, and that He and not the mere Man works all the 
miracles through His own Spirit, leads naturally to the Nestorian error of ascrib- 
ing the prerogatively divine operations of the Word to the mere creature whom 
He put on, and therefrom comes the custom of the Church of ascribing not only 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 363 


of all the Egyptian Diocese (702): they have been sent through the 


all the divine things, like miracles, worship, etc., but also all the human things, 
of that sinless Man to God the Word. Because that Man was ever sinless, the 
temptation to worship him would for that reason be the greater. Hence the 
care of the great teachers of the Church like Athanasius and Cyril, to guard the 
flock against that sin. 


There add, for the sake of the comparison, 7.9 Nestorian Counter Anathema 
IX: “Ifany one says that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the form of 
a servant [Philip. ii., 7.1 and does not rather say that by Its [the Spirit’s] medi- 
ation which was with God the Word from the conception itself, he [¢he form of 
a servant, the Man] had a coupling or conjunction, through which he some- 
times wrought compassionate cures on common men, and that from that came 
the power of putting [evil] Spirits to flight, let him be anathema.” 


Cyril in his Anathema IX. condemns the error that a mere human Christ 
wrought miracles and put evil spirits to flight. Nestorius, or whoever was the 
author of this Counter Anathema, asserts the contrary. 

Cyril explains his Anathema IX. in his Longer Epistle, pages 268-286. 

(682), page 340. ᾿Αρχιερέα καὶ ἀπόστολον; literally, in English, ‘“‘Chzef Doer ο΄ 
Sacred Aéts and Messenger.’’ Wewould coin the term ‘‘ herv,’’ from the Gree:. 
ἱερεύς, as being less ambiguous than ‘‘frzest,’’ which is an abbreviation of the 
Latin ‘‘presbyter,” from the Greek mpeoPirepoc, elder, which conveys a very 
different sense. 


(683), page 340. Heb. iti., 1. 


(684), page 341. Gal. i. 4; Tit. τὸς 14; Gal. ii., 20; Eph. v., 25; I. Tim. 11,;:6° 
I. John ii., 1, 2. In the last mentioned place, in Heb. vii., 25-28, and in Heb. iil., 
τ, we see the connection between Christ’s prerogative and High Priestly and 
Mediatorial Work of sacrificing Himself to the Father for our sins, and His 
continuing that work of propitiating the Father for our constantly occurring 
sins by his equally prerogative and High Priestly work of Intercession for us at 
the Father’s right hand in the Holy of Holies above. Seenote 688 below. On 
the words on pages 341, 342 above “αὐ odor of a sweet smell to the God and 
Father,’ see Eph. v., 2; compare Philip. iv., 18. 


(685), page 344. Johni., 14; I. Tim. iii., 16; I. John 1., 1, 2; and Heb. 1, 1 
to Heb. ii., 18, especially Heb. ii., 14. As Chapter 1 shows, it was God the Word 
who took flesh. 


(686), page 344. Heb. ii., 16, 17; Matt. xvi., 13; and I. Cor. xv., 47, etc. 
(687), page 346. II. Cor. v., 21. 


(688), page 346. Cyril’s doctrine in this anathema is that God the Word is 
our Mediator, and not a mere man, as Nestorius held. This is a fundamental 
and necessary truth to guard the prerogative glory of the Logos’ mediatorial 
work, of which intercession is part, and to exclude from any share of it any 
creature, be it the Virgin Mary, saints, martyrs, archangels, angels, or any 
other mere creature. St. Cyril, in his /ive-Book Contradiétion of the Blas. 


364 Act 1 of Ephesus. 


most religious Bishops Theopemptus, and Daniel, and Potamon, and 


phemties of Nestorius, Book III., sections 1, 2 and 3, has much on that topic; see the 
Oxford translation, pages 81-125. On page 97 (id., section 2) Cyril shows that 
the result of making a mere Man our High Priest is Wan Worship. For we 
naturally worship our High Priest and Intercessor, and if He be a man, and we 
worship him, we are beyond all doubt Worshippers ofa Man. I quote part of 
what Cyril here writes on that theme; he is arguing that our High Priest must 
be God in order to fulfil the conditions of the Christian Economy, and proceeds 
as follows: 


‘“ We have been justified by faith, and not by the deeds of the Law, as it is 
written [Galat. ii., 16]. | But] by believing on whom, therefore, are we justified ἢ 
Is it not on Him who suffered death for us after the flesh? Is it not in one Lord 
Jesus Christ? Have we not been redeemed by telling on his death and confess- 
ing His resurrection? If indeed, then, we have believed in a Man, one of those 
like us, and not, on the contrary, in God, the thing were WORSHIP OF A MAN, 
AND, CONFESSEDLY, NOTHING ELSE, (Greek, as on page 149, Vol. VI. of P. 
E. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril, ἀνϑρωπολατρεία τὸ χρῆμα, καὶ ἕτερον οὐδὲν ὁμολογουμένως). 
Put tf we believe that He who suffered in flesh is God, and that He was made 
cur High Priest, then we have in no way erred, but we recognize the Word 
IVho came out of God and was made man. And thus is required of us faith in 
God, who putteth out of condemnation and freeth from sins those who have 
been caught in them. For ¢he Son of Man hath also authority on the earth to 
forgive sins, as He Himself also somewhere saith [Matt. ix., 6; Mark ii., 10; 
Luke v., 24]. Contrasting, therefore, the salvation and favor which are by 
Christ, with the harshness of the Law’s severity, so to speak, we say that 
Anointed has been made a merciful High Priest |Heb. ii., 17]. For HE was 
AND Is Gop good by Hts [divine] Nature and always prone to pity and merciful, 
and hath not become that in time, but was made known as such to us; and He 
hath been named Fazthful (Heb 11., 17, “a mercifuland faithful High Priest’’] 
as remaining what He always is, according indeed to what has been said of the 
Father Himself also, But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted 
above that ye are able [I. Cor. x. 13]. The Emmanuel [that is, as Emmanuel 
means, the God with us, Matt. i., 23, that is, God the Word], has therefore been 
made a merciful and faithful High Priest for us; for, (as Paul saith), Many 
were made High Priests, because they were hindered by death from abiding 
(such); whereas He hath His Priesthood unchangeable because He abideth for- 
ever; wherefore He ts able to save also to the uttermost all those who go unto 
God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them (Heb. 
vil., 23-25.] And that the Word who came out of the Father hath remained God, 
albeit made Priest, as it is written [Heb. vii., 23-25, etc.] on account of the 
fashion and measure which befit the Economy with flesh [or within flesh], the 
word of the blessed Paul hath been made sufficient unto our full assurance, for 
he hath said again, Now, of the things which have been said this is the sum, We 
have such a High Priest,who hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of 
the Majesty in the heavens, a Priest of the Holy Places and of the true taber- 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 365 


Comarius (703) ; I beg [therefore] that the most religious Bishops 


nacle which the Lord pitched and not man [Heb. viii., 1, 2.]. View therefore, 
view the Word, who was born out of God, eminent on the one hand as God, in the 
highest glories and in the seats of Divinity, and on the other view the Same 
One performing priestly work as Man, and bringing to the Father no earthly 
sacrifice but, on the contrary, one that is Divine and intellectual, and as having, 
moreover, the heaven for a holy tabernacle. For He hath been made High 
Priest not after a Law ofa fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless 
life, as it is written [Heb. vii., 16]. And He is therefore fazth/u/ in this matter, 
and those who go to Him may feel sure that He is able and very willing to save 
them thoroughly; for with Hs own blood [Acts xx., 28] and dy one offering He 
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified [Heb. x., 14]. For that, I think, 
the holy Paul shows us when he says, /orin that He Himself hath suffered [by] 
being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted | Heb. 11., 18]. Why then, 
unrecking of those thoughts that are pious, and departing from right and truth- 
ful words, does he [Nestorius] say, ‘He who suffered was a merciful High 
Priest; but it was the temple [Christ’s humanity] which was liable to suffering, 
not the life-giving God of him [the mere man] who suffered.’ 

That the Word of God suffered voluntarily in flesh for us will be therefore 
shown in its own time.’’ 

See all Cyril’s Book III. on Christ’s archieratic office. See especially in the 
Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria On the Incarnation Against Nes- 
torius, pages 84-97, 104, 105, 106-124, and in the Index to that volume on page 
384 under ‘‘ MADE MAN.”’ 

To show the contrast between St. Cyril’s doctrine and Nestorius’, I here add 
The Nestorian Counter Anathema X.: 


‘““If any one says that that Word who was in the beginning [Tohn1., 1, 2} 
was made the High Priest and Apostle of our profession [Heb. 111., 1.], and that 
He offered Himself for us, and does not rather say that the Apostleship belongs 
to Emmanuel, and does not divide the offering in the same way between Him 
who united, and him who was united, to one fellowship of the Son. that is, by 
ascribing to God those things which belong to God, and to the Man those things 
which belong to the Man, let him be anathema.” 


The text here is very corrupt, but we are aided in elucidating it by the fact 
that we know the differences between Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius makes 
Emmanuel, contrary to its literal meaning of God with us, to mean a mere 
man, as we see by Counter Anathema I. above, and so his High Priest and 
Apostle was a mere Man. But how can a mere Man possess the infinite attri- 
butes of God, omnipresence and omniscience, to hear and understand the mil- 
lions of petitions offered to him at the same moment from different parts of the 
world, and to search and know thoroughly the hearts and lives of his invokers, 
and the wisdom or folly, and the righteousness or unrighteousness of their 
prayers, and make up his mind at once as to whether he will present them to 
his Father and exactly what he should ask for them. 


366 Act I. of Ephesus. 
pe 
Theopemptus and Daniel who are here present, be questioned as to 


this very matter. 
πλοῦν Naat ca Nl νὸν a la ὐπ  ΘΘ.. 


God the Word alone can be a fit Mediator and High Priest. And the chief 
function now of His High Priesthood is to intercede for us | Heb. vii., 23-28; I. 
John ii., I, 2.] 

Nestorius denies here also St. Cyril’s doftrine of the Economic Appropria- 
tion to God the Word of the sufferings and other things of the Man put on by 
Him, and that in order to avoid Man-Worship; see under Economic Appropria- 
tion in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 


It is much to be regretted that the prerogative Office Work of God the Word 
as the Sole Mediator, and the Sole Intercessor on high, has been much blurred 
in the Western and in the Eastern Liturgies which have reached us, all of which 
are more or less corrupted; a thing not to be wondered at when we consider 
that, as Warren states in his article Sign of the Cross in Smith and Cheetham’s 
Difionary of Christian Antiquities, page 1897, outer column, ‘‘ Most of the 
ritual writers and most missals and manuals, at all events in their present form, 
are of a later date than the ninth century.” The true Scriptural theory of the 
Eucharistic spiritual memorial sacrifice is that it is offered to the Father, as a 
commemoration of the one all sufficient sacrifice which was offered by Christ 
Himself to the Father. But in one or two heretical Offices which I have seen it 
is offered to the Son or to the whole Trinity, an error which was the result of 
ignorance and of that saint worship which has practically thrust Christ out of 
his Mediatorial and Intercessory funtions, all of which are prerogative to Him, 
and given them to mere creatures. The old Western Offices were kept purer so 
long as men knew and heeded the golden Canon XXIII. of III. Carthage, A. D. 
397, which in effect forbids men to confound the Office Work of the Father with 
that of the Son by naming the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father, 
and commands all prayer at the altar to be always addressed to the Father, and 
condemns the use of prayers written by ignorant brethren, who, by the way, 
would be apt to err on those points of the soleness of the Mediatorial and Inter- 
cessory work ofthe Son, and that it is prerogative to the Father to have the 
spiritual sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper offered to Him. ‘The American office is 
nearest to that canon and to Scripture and is therefore the best on those points. 


Outside of the Lord’s Supper probably, we find that in the Third Century, 
God the Word was invoked in the Alexandrian Church, as our High Priest in 
accordance with the doctrine enunciated in St. Cyril’s Anathema VIII. ‘‘¢o offer 
our desires, and sacrifices and prayers to the Most High.” On this what Origen 
writes against the pagan Celsus bears very importantly. The great Catechist of 
Alexandria (whom I here cite on a point on which he was never accused of 
heresy, for his historic testimony only, for with proper, precautions we may 
quote heretics sometimes for their historic testimony as we cite the Arian heretic 
Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Nestorian Theodoret for that), refers to a part of 
the ancient Christian worship which seems to have been laid aside in the middle 
ages, and is now but too little used, I mean the invocation of the Logos as our 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 367 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi said, Let our most religious fellow- 


Mediator. I quote him asin the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol, XXIII. 
pages 501 and 513. 
ORIGEN Against Celsus, book VIII., chapter 13: 


‘“ We worship with all our power the one God, and His Only Son, THE 
Worvp and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications; and we offer our 
petitions to the God of the Universe through His Only Begotten Son. To the 
Son we first present them, and BESEECH HM, AS the propitiation for our sins 
[I. John ii., 2,] avd ouUR HIGH PRIEST, @o offer our desires and sacrifices and 
prayers, to the Most High. Our faith, therefore, is directed to God through 
His Son, who strengthens it in us,”’ etc. 


ORIGEN Against Celsus, book VIII., chapter 26: 


‘‘Away, then, with this counsel, which Celsus gives us, to offer prayerto 
demons: it is not to be listened to for a moment; for our duty 15 to pray to the. 
Most High God alone, and to the Only Begotten, the First-Born of the whole 
creation AND TO ASK HIM AS OUR HIGH PRIEST TO PRESENT THE PRAYERS 
WHICH ASCEND TO HIM FROM US, TO HIS GOD AND OUR GoD, To HIS FATHER 
AND THE FATHER OF THOSE WHO DIRECT THEIR LIVES ACCORDING To His. 
Worn,’ [John xx;,. 17]. 

Now, if men who followed this primitive custom of invoking God the Word 
to pray for us (for, as Cyril teaches, as Man He prays for us, but as God He is 
prayed to), had been led into the Nestorian error and separated the Man from 
the Word, and invoked ¢he Man to present their prayers to the Father, they 
would have been guilty of giving an act of service, that ts prayer, to the creature, 
that is to the Man put on, and so they would be J/an-Servers, that is Creature- 
Servers. For that prayer is an act of religious service is not only clear from a 
multitude of passages in the Old Testament and the New, but also from the 
confession of Origen in the first of the two passages just quoted. For he dis- 
tinctly states: 

‘« We worship with all our power the One God, and His Only Son, the 
Word, and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications,’’ etc. At that early 
day the silly and heretical attempt to dodge the charge of idolatry and creature 
service by inventing such comparatively late distinctions as dulia, hyperdulia, 
latreia, and the rest of such devil’s arguments to lead the unlearned and the 
uncritical into a baptized but soul-damning paganism had not begun, and 
Origen makes no other distinctions here than the Scriptures do. 


And that prayer and all invocation are prerogative to Almighty God is clear 
from reason itself. For He Who would hear millions of prayers from every 
continent and sea of the globe, and plead intelligently for those who call upon 
Him to remember their needs specified in prayer and unspecified, and to procure 
them what they crave in express terms, and what they crave without putting 
their petitions into express and definite form, but only in general language, 
must have God’s prerogative of knowing every man’s heart (I. Kings viii., 39; 
Jer. xvii., τος Acts i., 24; 11. Chron. vi., 30; I. Chron. xxviii., 9), and must possess. 


968 Act L. of Ephesus. 


ministers Theopemptus and Daniel who are present, state whether 
they delivered the Epistles. 


the infinite attributes of ommniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, and since 
these divine attributes are prerogative to Almighty God, therefore He who pos- 
sesses them must be God. Hence only God the Word in the Son can be 
invoked, not at allthe Man. And the tendency of the error condemned in this 
Tenth Anathema would be finally to lead to the invocation of the Man, the 
creature united to God the Word, and so to plain Man-Service, that is, to Crea- 
ture-Service. Hence the reason for the Anathema, which is therefore solid, con- 
vincing, and excellen For every form of service to any created person or thing 
is a violation of Christ’s own command to serve God alone (Matt. iv., 10). Andthe 
Son in effect asserts His Divinity when Heclaims the Divine attribute of being able 
to search the heart (Rev. ii., 23; compare John ii., 24, 25; Matt. ix., 4; Mark ii.,.8; 
John vi., 64); and His disciples were convinced that He had come out of God’s 
Substance as He claimed because he had shown again and again that He knew 
the human heart and everything indeed; ‘‘/ came out of the Father,” as the 
Greek literally translated reads, ‘‘and have come into the world. Again I leave 
the world, and go to the Father. 4715 disciples said unto Him, Lo, now speak- 
est thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest 
all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee, by this we believe that 
thou camest out from God’’ (John xvi., 28-31; see the context). Compare the 
Greek of John viii., 42, ‘‘ 7 came out of God.”’ 


The doctrine and custom of the primitive Church in appealing to God the 
Son to act as High Priest, Mediator, and Intercessor, iseminently Scriptural. For 
the Israelitish High-Priest who was His foretype in offering the foretypical sac- 
rifice of blood and in interceding for the people on the day of Atonement, 
‘““aLONE’’ went into the most Holy Place ‘“‘ once every year’’ to plead for the 
sins of his people, and that ‘‘ ot without blood which He offered for himself and 
for the errors of the people ; the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into 
the holiest of all was not yet made mantfest, while as the first tabernacle was yet 
standing,’ Heb. ix., 7, 8, 9. To enter the Most Holy Place was the prerogative 
of the High Priest. He ‘‘a/one’’ could intercede for Israel there. 


And so it is prerogative to God the Word to enter with his own blood into 
the true Most Holy Place of which the Most Holy Place of the Mosaic taberna- 
cle was, as Paul explains, (Heb. ix., 24) a figure. It is just as prerogative for 
Him to intercede for all His people there as it was prerogative to the Aaronic 
High Priest to intercede for Israel in its figure the ancient Most Holy Place. 
And blessed be God, the Word’s intercession is all sufficient, and needs not the 
aid of any creature however blessed to make it perfect. For Paul writes, (Heb. 
vii., 24, 25) that ‘‘¢hzs [Priest] * * * hath an unchangeable Priesthood. 
Wherefore He ts able also to save them To THE UTTERMOST ¢hat come unto God 
BY Him, seeing He ever liveth to make INTERCESSION for them. For sucha 
High Priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, 
and made higher than the heavens.”’ | 


And therefore John writes (I. John ii., 1, 2) of the value of His intercession : 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 369 


Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, satd: We went up to the 


“Tfhany man sin, we have AN ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
Righteous ; and He ts the Propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world.’ 


And He is our only Mediator, and a part of His Mediatorial Work now is 
Intercession, aye, now that the sacrifice on Calvary has been offered, and His 
teachings left in the Scriptures, it isthe chief part of His Mediatorial work. Paul 
speaks of there being but ove Mediator as there is but ove God. His words 
imply that there are no more two Mediators than there are two Gods (I. Tim. 
ii., 5); and that He is the only Mediator, the Only Intercessor in the 
Most Holy Place on high is implied in the fact that there could be but one High 
Priest in Israel, but one Intercessor in the Most Holy Place on the Day of 
Atonement. 

And that same meaning is implied in the full and natural sense of John xiv. 
6, where Christ says, ‘‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh 
unto the Father, dutby Me.”’ 

God the Word therefore is the Sole Intercessor in heaven for men. The 
New Testament never represents any creature as interceding for men there. 
The only other intercession mentioned, that of the souls under the altar, is a 
prayer not for but against men, acry for vengeance on the wicked: Rev. vi., 9, Io. 


Even as late as the days of Augustine of Hippo this truth, that Christ 
ALONE pleads for us above, had not been lost sight of. For that eminent meu 
who, though not without some of the faults of his age, did nobly against the 
Pelagian errors, and against the worship of pictures and sepulchres, and against 
putting images into God’s temples, has left us in a note on the Sixty-fourth 
Psalm a testimony in favor of the doctrine that Christ alone, our Great High 
Priest, prays, that is intercedes for us above. He there says: 

‘‘ He Himself is the Priest who has now entered within the veii. HE ALONE 
of those who have worn flesh INTERCEDES [or ‘‘PRAYS’’] FOR US THERE. Asa 
figure of which things among the first people and in that first temple, one priest 
was entering into the Holy of Holies, whilst all the people were standing with- 
out.”’ 

I append the Latin as I find it in Finch’s Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 
page 159; ‘‘ Ipse Sacerdos est, qui nunc ingressus in interiora veli, sous 767 ex 
Ais qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis. In cujus rei figura in illo 
primo populo, et in illo primo templo unus sacerdos intrabat in Sancta Sanctorum; 
populus omnis foris stabat, Jz Ps. lxiv., tom. 4, 2. 633. Finch means the 
Benedictine edition, Paris, 1685. 

And so the Universal Church at Ephesus in A. D. 431 teaches us not only that 
Christ is our High Priest, but that we must always go to our Intercessor as pos- 
sessing the attributes of God, not of a mere man, for no mere Man is omniscient 
and omnipresent to hear us, to understand our secret thoughts and all our 
words and deeds, and to intercede intelligently with infinite kuowledge of every 


910 WANE. or Ephesus: 


Bishop’s house on the Lord’s Day, after service had been finished, 


fact in its beariugs on our salvation and usefulness and on the salvation and 
usefulness of our fellow men. 

So the sin aimed at and denounced in this Tenth Anathema is that which 
degrades the Mediator by making His work capable of being exercised by a 
mere man, and by ascribing to that man those infinite attributes and that wor- 
ship of invocation which belong solely to God. Thus through St. Cyril andthe 
Third Council of the whole Church, East and West, did the Holy Ghost con- 
demn all denial of the truth that God the Word is the Sole Interceder above by 
His Humanity, and all making Christ’s separate Humanity our High Priest, and 
thus did It condemn all worship of Christ’s separate humanity by bowing, 
prayer, prostration, kneeling, incense, and in every other way; and so, by nec- 
essary implication, did it anathematize every one who makes the Virgin Mary, 
any martyr, or any other saint, or archangel, or angel, to share God the Word’s. 
prerogative of interceding for us above; which, of course, He does by His hum- 
anity, though, according to the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, that inter- 
cession is ascribed to God the Word. Yet the other, the chief part of His 
Intercessory Office, the hearing of Prayer addressed to Himself (God the Word), 
and the searching the heart and motives of His invokers, belong to His Divine 
. Nature as the omnipresent, the omniscient and the omnipotent Word. To 
ascribe them to any creature is shocking blasphemy and creature-worship. 


Clement of Alexandria in his /zstrucior makes the Word the Mediator, for 
in Book III. chapter I., of it he says : 

‘““THE WORD IS THE MEDIATOR, common to the two [God and Man] for 
He is Son of God, and Saviour of Men; and His Minister (4) and our In. 
structor,’’ (ὁ). 

CENTURY II: Clement of Alexandria exhorts to honor God ‘“‘ through the 
divine Word.” (Exhortation to the Heathen, chapter XI. page 104, vol. IV. of 
the Ante Nicene Christian Library). 

Further on in Chapter XII. of the same Exhortation, page 108, id., he speaks of 
‘‘mHE WORD OF GOD,”’’ and adds, ‘‘ This Jesus, Who is eternal, ¢he one great High 
Priest of the one God Hs Father, prays for and exhorts men.’ 


In chapter X. he says that “‘ The Saviour, the Clement, the Divine Word, 
Fle that is truly most mantfest Deity, He that 1s made equal to the Lord of the 
universe because He was His Son, and the Word, was in God,’ “‘ was in reality 
adored,” and is ‘‘THE EXPIATOR OF SIN.’’ Here the Word is the Exfiator of 
Sin, that work of expiation He did as our great High Priest on Calvary. Hence 
Paul in Acts xx., 28, speaking of God the Word, mentions ‘‘¢he Church of God 
which He hath purchased with His own blood.’’ Here by the doctrine of Econ- 
omic Appropriation, Paul ascribes the bloodshedding of Christ’s humanity to 
God the Word. On such passages is that doctrine based. We have seen that 


(a). Rom. xv., 8. 
(6). The Greek 15 quoted in note 14, page 215, vol. I. of Smith’s Gieseler’s Church History, 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 371 


and, all the clergy being present and nearly all the men of illustrious 
rank, we delivered those Letters to Nestorius. 


St. Cyril of Alexandria in section 13 of his Scholia on the Inman of the Sole- 
Born ascribes, in accordance with the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, all the 
names of both Natures of the Son to God the Word and the sufferings of His: 
humanity to the Word also. And we see from what here follows that Clement. 
of Alexandria does the same long before him: for, as quotedin Syzth’s Greseler’s: 
Church History, Sheldon and Co., vol. I. N. Y. 1867, page 175, he applies to 
God the Word the name Jesus, which as we see on page 161 above, Nestorius 
applies there to Christ’s human nature. Clement also ascribes Christ’s blood- 
shedding to God the Word. I quote and translate; in his /ustructor, Book I. 
chapter 7, Clement says, 


‘« Our Instructor Jesus ts the Holy God, the Word Whois the Guide of all 
humanity,” ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος παιδαγωγὸς ἅγιος Θεὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὁ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος 
καθηγεμὼν Λόγος. 

In the same work, Book I. chapter 6, he writes: 


“The Word shed His blood for us,’ ὁ Λόγος τὸ αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐξέχεεν αἷμα. 
This implies, of course, that the High Priest who offered that sacrifice was God 
the Word ; which is Cyril’s doctrine in Anathema X. above. 


Tertullian Against Marcion, Book IV., chapter IX., speaking of the case of 
the leper cured by Christ (Matt. viii, 2-5 ; Mark i., 40-45 and Luke v., 12-14) 
and by Him told ‘‘ Go show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses 
commanded,’’ explains the priest asa type of Christ and the leper as a type 
of the sinner going to the Father through Him. I quote that part: 


‘Ror He was yet guarding in their images the figurative proofs [of His. 
mission and works] inasmuch as they came from the prophetic Law, for they 
were signifying that man once a sinner, but afterwards purified thereof by the 
Word of God, ought to offer a gift toGod in His temple, that is, prayer and 
thanksgiving in the Church, through Christ Jesus the Catholic priest of the 
Father.’”’ (4). God the Word is therefore the Purifier of Men that is, by His. 
High Priestly atonemeut. Compare Acts xx., 28. All others are local priests, 
who can not continue in their office by reason of death (Heb. vii., 23), but Godthe 
Word isthe ‘‘ Catholic,”’ that is, ‘‘ the Universal Priest of the Father,’’ in that He: 
hath offered the one all sufficient sacrifice of which we offer only the aftertypes 
of bread and wine ; and in that His sacrifice is Universal, even ‘for the sins of 
the whole world,’’ (I. John ii., 2), and He is the Catholic Priest of the Father in 
that His Priesthood reaches to all times past, present and future, (Heb. ix., 15, 
and Heb. vii., 22-28), and is of itself all sufficient (Heb. vii., 25). 


In the Epistle of Julius Africanus to Aristides, which was written in the 
third century, we find a clear statement that all Christians hoped in the Inter- 
cession and Mediation of Christ as presenting our prayers to the Father. It 


(d). Col. 376, tome 2 οὗ Migne’s Patrologia Latina. 


372 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


And Daniel, Bishop of Darnts, stated the same things likewise. 


occurs in a passage where he is reconciling what some deemed the apparent dis- 
crepancies in the genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and Luke. I quote: 


‘‘ AFRICANUS ON THE GENEALOGY IN THE HOLY GoSPELS. Some indeed 
incorrectly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names 
both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly in order that 
Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King; asif any one dis- 
believed this, or had any other hope than this, that Christ is the High Priest of 
His Father, WHO PRESENTS OUR PRAYERS TO HIM, and a supramundane King, 
who rules by the Spirit those whom He has delivered, a Co-Operator in the 
government of all things,’’ (a). 


See on page 127 above, note, a Nestorian’s opposition to the doctrine of St. 
Cyril’s Anathema X. and what follows it on Cyril’s view. His invocation of our 
High Priest would be of course the invocation of a mere creature, in other words, 
saint worship! Well therefore and wisely did St. Cyril and the God-led Third 
Council anathematize that return to Man-Worship, that is, Creature Worship. 


St. Athanasius in his 7veatises Against Arianism, Oxford English trans- 
lation, pages 300, 301, Discourse or Oration 11. section 14, has a very fit and very 
important Passage which bears on Anathema X. of St. Cyril. I have quoted 
it on page 237 top, volume I. of Vzcaea in this Set. The Greek is quoted there. 
It is Passage 12 of Athanasius. I have givenit in what I have aimed to make a 
more exact translation than Newman’s there. There Cyril contends that the 
work of redemption, of course by Christ’s archieratic sacrifice on Calvary and by 
his present High Priestly Intercession above, must be accomplished by God the 
Word and not by a mere man, lest we worship that man. I quote the English 
of it again here: 

‘‘For it was not fitting that the redemption should be accomplished by an- 
other, dut by Him Whois Lord by Nature [that is, God the Word, ] lest though 
we were created through the Son [God the Word, John i., 3; Coloss. i., 13-23, ] 
we should nevertheless name another, LorvD, and fall into the Arian and Pagan 
folly of serving a creature, contrary to the God who created all things.’ And 
that was exactly what the Nestorians did, for St. Cyril and the Synod of the 
whole Diocese of Egypt in their Anathema VIII. anathematize them according 
to God’s Word (Galat. 1., 8, 9), for applying the term God toa Man, a creature, 
and for giving that mere creature two atts of religious service, bowing,anddoxolo- 
gizing, that is glorifying Him. Seethat Anathema. And so, in this place, St. 
Athanasius shows that when men make Christ’s humanity merely, their Re- 
deemer, that is, of course, their High Priest, their Sacrifice, and their Intercessor 
on high, the outcome is very liable to be a falling ‘ ἡπίο the Arian and Pagan 
Jolly of serving a creature, contrary to the God who created all things,’’ Rom. i., 
25, Greek ; for He has forbidden it in Matt. iv., 10. And in that teaching, 
Athanasius’ disciple and successor, Cyril, has followed him. 


St. Athanasius again and again teaches that it is God the Word Who is our 


(a). Page 164, part 2, vol. IX. of the Ante Nicene Christian Library. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 373 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said; Did he therefore satisfy the 
demands of the Letters? 


High Priest and Intercessor, Who, however, as such uses His humanity to do ¢he 
human things, such as praying to God and suffering and dying. I have space 
here to quote only a few more places from his works. In his Second Oration 
Against the Arians, sections 7, 8, 9 and το, he is meeting the Arian perversion 
of the words “who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ in the expression on 
Christ’s High Priesthood, ‘‘ Wherefore, holy brethern, partakers of the heavenly 
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, Who was 
faithful to Him that made Him,” (Heb. iii., 1, 2). The Greek for the last part 
is κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον Kai ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν͵ πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ 
ποιήσαντι αὐτόν. The Arians took made (rendered by appointed in our common 
Version) to mean that God the Word is a creature, in accordance with their 
creature-worshipping heresy. 

To this Athanasius replies, as on pages 289-296 of the Oxford translation of 
his Treatises against Arianism as follows, (My revision) : 

‘Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, and from the single 
expression He made, may shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God 
isa work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, shewing 
the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to shew from 
it also how the heretics lack reason; viz., by considering, as we have done above, 
the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not 
discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when ¢he Word 
became flesh; for thus it is written, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the 
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, 
who was faithful to Him that made Him, (a). Now when became He Afosile, 
but when He put on our flesh? and when became He High Priest of our pro- 
fession, but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His body from the 
dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father, those who in 
His faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God? Not then 
as wishing to signify the Substance of the Word nor His natural generation from 
the Father, did the Apostle say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,— 
(perish the thought ! for the Word is not made, but makes, )—but as signifying 
His descent to mankind and High-priesthood which did decome,—as one may 
easily see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. 

I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man ; and in process of time, 
when God willed, he became a high priest ; yet became so, not simply, nor as 
betokened by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breast- 
plate, the robe, (ὁ) which the women wrought at God’s command, and going in 
them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people ; and in them, 
as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus 
then the Lord also, /x the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 


a τ od eee ee eee 
(a). Heb. iii., 1, 2. 
(δ). Hxod. xxix., 5. 


374 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Daniel, Bishop of Darnis, said: He told us then to come on 


and the Word was God; but when the Father willed that ransoms should be 
paid for all and to all grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his 
robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His body as if 
virgin earth, that, as a High Priest, having as others an offering, He might 
offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and 
might rise from the dead. For what happened of old was a shadow of this ; and 
what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the 
Law. Asthen Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high- 
priestly dress, but remaining the same was only robed,so that had any one seen him 
offering and had said, ‘‘Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,’’ he had not 
implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became 
high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting 
on the garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it 
is possible in the Lord’s instance also to understand aright, that He did not be- 
come other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He 
was robed in it ; and the expressions He became and He was made, must not be 
understood as if the Word, considered as the Word, were made, but that the 
Word, being Framer of all, afterwards was made High Priest, by putting on a 
body which was generate and made, and such as He can offer for us ; wherefore 
He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become man, that is a 
point for the Arians to battle ; but if the Word became flesh, what ought to have 
been said concerning Him when become man, but Who was faithful to Him 
That made Him ? for as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, 722 the 
beginning was the Word, so it is proper to man to become and to be made. 
Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be 
God from His works, would not have asked, Who made Him man? and who 
again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him 
man, and sent Him to us as High Priest ? 


And this meaning, and time, and character, the Apostle himself, the writer 
of the words, Whois faithful to Him that made Him, will best make plain to 
us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought and 
the passage is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews thus: Fuorasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, 
He also Himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death Hle might 
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them 
who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily 
He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of 
Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His 
brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things per- 
taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that 
He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are 
tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider 
the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus ; who was faithful to Him 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 375 


the following day, and to meet him alone; but when we went thither 


That made Him (c). Who can read this whole passage without condemning the 
Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle who has spoken so well? for when was 
Christ made, when became He Afost/e, except when, like us, He Zook part 77:1 
flesh and blood? And when became He a merciful and faithful High Priest, 
except when 7 all things He was made like unto Hits brethren? And then was 
He made like, when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Where- 
fore Paul was writing concerning the Word’s human economy, when he said, 
Who was faithful to Him that made Him, and not concerning His Substance. 
Have not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God is a work, 
whereas He is Son by Nature, Sole-Born; and then had brethren, when He 
took on him flesh like ours; and He Himself offering it by Himself, He was 
named and became merciful and faithful—merciful, because in mercy to us He 
offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having 
faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and 
does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come 
to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faith- 
fulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but the 
Saviour’s sacrifice taking place once has perfected the whole, and is become 
faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, and ina word the 
priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went 
on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without suc- 
cession, has become a faithful High Priest, as continuing for ever ; and faithful 
too by promise, that he may hear and not mislead those who come to Him. 


This may be also learned from the Epistle of great Peter, who says, Let 
them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls toa faithful 
Creator (d). For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and render- 
ing what He has promised. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the 
name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises; for the same 
are not every where, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and 
undergo a natural dissolution ; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that 
faith is not strong in them, but they are waters that fail, and there 15 no faith 
in them. But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, 
who is ever the same, and says, See now, that I, even I am He, and I change 
not ; (e) and therefore His Son is faithful, being ever the same and unchanging, 
deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise ;—as again says the Apostle 
writing to the Thessalonians, Faithful is He who calleth you, who also will do 
it; (f) for in doing what he promises, He is faithful to His words. And he thus 
writes to the Hebrews on the sense of faithful and unchangeable, If we believe 
not, yet He abideth faithful ; He cannot deny Himself. Therefore reasonably 


(c). Heb. ii., 14-18; iii., 2. 

(d). I. Peter iv., 14. 

(e). Vid., Jer. ix., 3, and Xv., 18; Deut. xxxii., 20. Sept.; Deut. xxxii., 39; Mal., iii., 6. 
(7). I. Thess. v., 24. 


910 Aci 1 of Ephesus, 


accordingly, he shut the doors against us, and deigned us no 
response. 


the Apostle, discoursing concerning the coming of the Word in a body, uses 
Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him, shewing us that, even when made 
man, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to-day, and for ever (g), is un- 
changeable. And asthe Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being 
made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence 
about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard 
on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may 
forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father’s. For in- 
stance, he says, J/oses as a servant, but Christ as a Son; and the former fazth- 
ful in his house, and the latter over the house, as having Himself built it and 
being its Lord and Framer; and as God sanctifying it (1). For Moses, a man by 
nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word ; but 
the Word was not as one of things generate in a body, nor as creaturein creature 
but as God in flesh, and Framer of all and Builder from that which was built by 
Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist ; but the Word 
of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and though He was Lord, 
was in the form of a servant; for the whole creation is the Word’s servant, which 
by Him came to be, and was made.”’ 


To the same tenor writes Cyril again and again. See also for more to the 
same effect in the /wdea of Texts, and of Scripture in his works. 

Newman, in note m, on page 292 of his translation of St. Athanasius’ 
Treatises Against Arianism, is misty and inexact. He classes writers who 
treat of Christ’s High Priesthood as follows : 


1. Those who made God the Word High Priest, and 

2. Those who made His Humanity High Priest. 

And he even goes so far as to say that ‘‘ Cyril adv. Nest., p. 64,” “‘may be 
taken to countenance’’ Nestorius’ error ‘‘that the Man Christ Jesus was the 
Priest)! 

Then he tells us that ‘‘The Catholic doctrine is that the Divine Word is 
Priest 2722 and according to His Manhood.”’ 


But these statements are not exact. For as we have already seen, Cyril’s 
High Priest is God the Word in a Man, both Natures, not one only. As God the 
Word Our High Priest and Mediator is worshipped by prayer to Him, bowing, 
and the other acts of religious service; as Man, He prays for us, suffers, and 
dies. But by Cyril’s and the Universal Church’s doctrine of Economic Appro- 
priation, all those human things are appropriated to God the Word ¢o prevent 
our worshipping His mere created humanity, as both Athanasius and Cyril 
teach on this very point. Seein proof Passage 73 of St. Athanasius, pages 237— 
240, of Volume I. of Nicaea in this Set. The fact is that ‘‘ Zhe Catholic doc- 


[Ρὴ: Hebsxiiits, 85: 17 Lim. 1117 
(h). Heb. 11]., 5, 6. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 377 


Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, said: We [Nestorius] received 


trineé’’ on Christ’s High Priesthood is Cyril’s, for it is he who sets it forth in his 
Long Epistle above, and in his Anathema X. The doctrine of His Sacrifice and 
suffering is explained in his Two Epistles, which were approved at Ephesus, and 
in that to John of Antioch, which was approved at Chalcedon. And it is ab- 
surdly false to teach that St. Cyril ‘‘ may be taken to countenance’’ Nestorius’ 
heresy ‘‘ that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest,’’ to the exclusion of God the 
Word. For that seems to be Newman’s notion. Whereas it was the very heresy 
which Cyril was combatting as false, heretical, and as ending in the fundamental 
pagan error of worshipping a creature, as we see above in this note in his own 
words on page 364, and below. 


Other inaccuracies in Newman’s note should be mentioned, but the length 
of this note bids me hasten to its end. Newman was able, but never fully 
understood the Six Ecumenical Synods, nor did he thoroughly even know them. 
Hence his fall into idolatry, and his hopeless death in it. Rev. xxi., 8; Gal.v., 
19-22. 

At the time of the Reformation, Stancari the Socinian, and Osiander the 
Lutheran, touched upon the question of Christ’s High Priestly sacrifice again. 
See the article Staucarists in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, and under 
Osiander there. 


On the Apostleship and High Priesthood of God the Word, see P. E. 
Pusey’s translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
Nestorius, pages 85 to 124, inclusive, 165, 166; it agrees with his Anathema X., 
and with Athanasius above. 


On the kind of offering made by Him in heaven to the Father, see especially 
page 98. It is quoted above in this note. 


Cyril makes Christ as God the only Mediator, id., page 160, 200. Mediation 
is, of course, part of His High Priestly Function and Office. 


In St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Defense of his XII. Anathemas, that is, Chap- 
ters, Against Theodoret, under Anathema X., Cyril asserts, as elsewhere, that 
God the Word is our High Priest, that is, our Mediator and Intercessor, who, 
however, works the human things by His humanity. 


Theodoret, on the contrary, contends that Christ’s humanity only is our 
High Priest. The place is found on pages 464-484 of Volume VI. of P. E. 
Pusey’s Greek of St. Cyril. On page 484, id., Cyril speaking of Theodoret and 
the Nestorians says that, 


“It is therefore clear beforehand that while they pretend to confess the 
Union [of the Two Natures of Christ] in order to deceive the judgments of the 
simpler sort of people, they nevertheless hold to a [mere] external and relative 
conjunction, which we also have, in that we have been made fartakers of the 
divine Nature through the Spirit,’’ (II. Peteri., 4). 

That, of course, implies that the Nestorian High Priest was a mere Man, 
who had only an external and relative conjunction to God the Word, for he 
was not indwelt by His divine Substance. 


378 Att 2. of fphesius: 


the aforesaid documents (704) and arranged for us to meet him on 


Cyril of Alexandria teaches that Christ worships as man, but is worshipped 
as God. See his ive Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 
Book III., Chapter I., page 136, d., of P. Ἐς. Pusey’s Greek in Vol. VI. of his 
edition of Cyril, and Section 18 of his Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-Born. 
In the first mentioned passage St. Cyril, speaking of God the Word’s High 
Priestly Office and Functions, writes: 


‘‘For if when He was made a man like us, He worshipped with us asa Man, 
although the multitude above and the holy spirits worship Him [as God the Word] 
and Moses saith concerning Him, Rejoice ye heavens with Him, and let all 
God's sons worship Him,”’ etc., [Deut. xxxii., 43, Sept.] The Greek of the 
above in Pusey is as follows: εἰ γὰρ ἐπείπερ γέγονε καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς προσκεκύνηκε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν 
ὡς ἄνθρωπος" καίτοι προσκυνούσης αὐτὸν τῆς ἄνω πληθύος καὶ τῶν ἁγίων πνευμάτων, λέγοντός 
τε Μωυσέος περὶ αὐτοῦ ““ Ἐὐφράνθητε οὐρανοὶ ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες 
υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. Cyril teaches that God the Word prays as man: see in proof St. Cyril 
of Alexandria On the Right Faith to Pulcheria and Eudocia, page 309, Part I., 
vol. VII. of P. E. Pusey’s Greek of St. Cyril’s Works. To thesame effect writes 
Cyril in his Christ 1s One, pages 287, 288, 289, and notes αὶ and 2 in the Oxford 
translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 


St. Cyril of Alexandria in his dddress on the Right Faith to Pulcheria and 
Fudocia, has some excellent remarks on the High Priesthood of Christ, shows 
that God the Word is our High Priest, and that if a mere Man were, as the Nes- 
torians contended, the result would be Zetradism and Creature Worship. The 
Passage is found on pages 305-316, Part I., vol. VII. of P. E. Pusey’s Greek of 
Cyril, and should all be read, for he well sets forth the soleness of Christ’s one 
Sacrifice, the Divinity of the Offerer, and the duty of avoiding the worship of the 
creature, that is, the Man put on by the Logos. I have room here only to quote 
from pages 312, 313. Cyril there writes: 

“τ Now of the things which we have spoken this ts the sum: We have such a 
Fligh Priest, Who hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty 
in the heavens, a Minister of the Holy Places and of the true tabernacle which 
the Lord pitched and not man,’ [Heb. viii., 1, 2]. The ancient tabernacle was 
raised in the wilderness through the all-wise Moses and was made after the 
fashion showed to him in the mount [Exod. xxvi., 30; Exod. xxvii., 8, and Heb. 
viii., 5], andit was most suitable for those who were priests according to the Law 
[of Moses]; but the fit and seemly dwelling place for the Anointed One (τῷ 
Xprotu) is the beautiful city above, that is, the heaven, the divine and loftiest 
tabernacle, and not a contrivance of human art but sacred and God-built. 
Christ has gone there and brings to the God and Father those who believe in 
Him, and who have been sanctified by the Spirit, of course. For ‘Wo one’ saith 
He, ‘cometh unto the Father but by Me,’ [John xiv., 6]. And thisis the man- 
ner of what is termed His ministry there: and the thing is prerogative to God 
[or ‘ God befitting,’ Θεοπρεπές], even though it be signified in words such as we 
use, that is, in human language. For why is it not prerogative to God (Θεοπρεπές) 
to possess the power to sanctify by His own Spirit those who believe and are 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 379 


the following day. We [therefore] departed. Then when we re- 


justified by mercy and grace, and to be such a one as to perform priestly acts for 
those who are dead to the world, but made alive by the Spirit, and who shine 
forth by a truly well-famed life? And though he issaid to minister, nevertheless 
the fact that He is settled in the seats of God and that He is seated at the right 
hand of Him who brought Him forth clearly proves besides that He is not in- 
ferior to the Father, and that He does not come after Him as respects the 
glory which is inherent in Him. And since it is true that Avery priest ever 
stood in ministering, and no one who worshipped God could at any time be 
deemed Co-Sitter and of equal glory with Him [God], why is not the Anointed 
One [ὁ Χριστός] a Priest in an unusual sense forasmuch as He sits in the seats of 
the Godhead as God, and ministers as man? But if now any one by way of 
slandering the truth would say, Yes, He has sat down at the right hand of the 
Father merely as a man conjoined to the Word, [but] only in an equality of dig- 
nity ; no longer does he say that the loftiest throne above belongs to the Nature 
of the holy Trinity only, even that throne which is prerogative to It alone, [or 
‘which befits It alone’’] but there is at once brought in to us this here some 
new and created God besides after the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.’? The 
Greek of this last part is as follows: εἰ δὲ δῇ τις λέγοι συκοφαντῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, Or: 
vai κεκάθικεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς ἰδικῶς ἄνθρωπος συνημμένος τῷ Λόγῳ, κατὰ μόνην τὴν 
ἰσότητα τῆς ἀξίας" οὐκέτι μονογενῶς εἷναί φησι τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τὸν ἀνωτάτω καὶ μόνῃ καὶ 
αὐτῇ πρέποντα θρόνον, ἀλλ' ἤδη τις ἡμῖν τέταρτος οὐτοσὶ, πρόσφατός τε καὶ γενητὸς ἐπεισ- 
κρίνεται Θεὸς, μετὰ τὴν ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἁγίαν Τριάδα. 

The expression zew God towards the end of the above quotation seems to 
refer to the Septuagint Greek Version of Psalm 1xxx., 9, (our lxxxi., 9), ‘‘ There 
shall be no new god in thee.’ 

St. Cyril of Alexandria in a work against the Synzousiasts, that is, the Co- 
substancers, makes Christ the only Mediator. See P. E. Pusey’s English trans- 
lation of S¢. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, page 
370, foot. But he makes His humanity necessary to His Mediatorship. Yet 
God the Word is the Mediator there as elsewhere in Cyril, but does the human 
things such as praying to God for us, suffering, and dying, in His humanity. 
And Cyril tells the Synousiasts that if they do away His humanity they do away 
the human part of His Mediatorial and High Priestly work. See there. 

Besides, St. Cyril has matter which bears on his Anathema X. in his 7%es- 
aurus, Assertio XXT., column 355, and after in tome 75 of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca. And see his works passim, for the theme of that Anathema was a 
topic which he was fond of referring to. 

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in his City of God, Book X., section 3, writes as 
to Christ’s Mediatorial office: 

“ Lhe priest who intercedes for us is His [the Father’s] Only Begotten,” 
page 386, vol. 1 of the English translation published by the Clarks, of Edinburgh. 
This shows that Augustine deemed God the Word our High Priest ; for the term 
Only Begotien, that is Sole Born, (in Greek Movoyevic, in Latin, Unigenitus, ) 


380 Act I. of Ephesus, 


turned on the following day he did not receive us, nor, moreover, did 


has always been understood to mean God the Word, in accordance with the 
language of the Nicene Creed, where it is explained as follows, “ Oue Lord 
Jesus Anointed, the Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole Born, that 1s out 
of the Substance of the Father, God out of God, Light out of Light, very God 
out of very God, born, not made, of the same Substance as the Father.’ The 
reference, as any one can see, is to the birth of God the Word out of the Father 
“before all the worlds,’ as indeed it is explained in the other of the sole two 
Ecumenical Creeds, the Constantinopolitan, as follows, ‘‘One Lord Jesus 
Anointed, the Son of God, the Sole Born, Who was born out of the Father 
before all the worlds.’ Sole Born out of the Father means therefore only God 
the Word, for no one is so blasphemous as to assert that His humanity was born 
out of Him, but, on the contrary, all admit that it was born out of the Virgin 
thousands of years after ¢he worlds were made. 

Leo I., Bishop of Rome, A. D., 440-461, did good work for Orthodoxy at 
Chalcedon, so good that his Epistle to Flavian, Leo’s Tome as it is called, was 
approved by the whole Church there. Yet he did not know Greek (so Professor 
Bright says on page xiv. of the Preface to his English translation of S?. Leo on 
the Incarnation), and in his attempts to secure Appellate Jurisdiction in the 
West, was so perversely ignorant and ambitious, in regard to the Nicene Canons, 
that he quotes the mere local canons of Sardica as being canons of the first Ecu- 
menical Synod, even after his See had been informed by Cyril of Alexandria, 
Constantinople and by the Council of Carthage ; of which we treat in a series of 
articles on the Adtempt of Rome to secure Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa in 
Centuries V. and VL., in the Church Journal of New York City for 1870, which 
we hope to reproduce in a slightly enlarged form hereafter, if God will. Besides. 
Leo violated the canons of Nicaea in order to get and to exercise Appellate Juris- 
dition in Gaul, and induced the weak Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., to 
back up his ambitious attempts to get such jurisdiction by issuing an edict re- 
quiring the secular powers to enforce Leo’s summons to any bishop of the West 
whom he wished to appear before him. It was thus that Leo secured the right 
of Appellate Jurisdiction in Gaul. Well therefore has he been censured by 
Bright on page v. of his Preface to St. Leo on the Incarnation for “the faults. 
which can not but be discerned in what we may call his Papal policy, the hasty 
injustice and absolutism with which he treated so eminent a bishop as Hilary of 
Arles,—the employment ofa worthless Western emperor as the instrument for en- 
forcing his own supremacy throughout the West,—the persistence with which, in 
spite of evidence which must have been familiar to one who had been in the ser- 
vice of the Roman Church from thetime of Pope Zosimus, he went on claiming the 
warrant of the Nicene Council for an appellate jurisdiction in hisown see,—such 
things are too clear proofs that he did not rise above the temptations which beset 
men born to rule,” etc. As Bright there shows, Tillemont, a learned French 
Romanist, but a Gallican, blames Leo for his action towards Hilary of Arles, 
and ‘‘ indicates clearly enough that, in his opinion, * * * Leo had ‘over- 
stepped the bounds of the canons.’”? Cazenove in his article Hidarius Arela- 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 381 


he satisfy the demands of the Letters (705), but before the Church 


tensts, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. II1., page 
70, outer column, shows that not only Tillemont, but also Quesuel and other 
Gallicans ‘‘stand up strongly in defence of Hilary ; and it is not too much to say 
that the language of Tillemont against Leo is far stronger than that of Dean 
Milman,’’ an Anglican. In note I, page vi. of his Preface, Bright gives proofs 
of Leo’s dishonesty in adducing the local canons of Sardica as being the Ecu. 
menical canons of Nicaea. 


Leo's lack of knowledge of Greek would keep him from knowing much of 
St. Cyril of Alexandria, but he knew him to sorie extent and appealed to his 
Epistle to Nestorius which had been approved at Ephesus, as authority: so states 
Bright on page xv. of his Preface to histranslation of S. Leo on the Incarnation. 


I have said this much by way of preface to what I may have to say as to 
Leo’s opinions on the High Priesthood and Mediatorship of God the Word. 
Leo makes God the Word with His humanity our Mediator: see pages 3, 56, 57 
of Bright’s work just mentioned. Yet Leo believed that saints in heaven pray 
for us ( article Leo /. in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
vol. III., page 670, outer column), though he does not pray to them. That view, 
held in effect by some other writers, militates against the following facts: 


1. Christ’s Mediation as our High Priest and Intercessor in heaven is God- 
authorized, and all other is forbidden (Heb. vii., 25; I. Johnii., 1, 2, and John xiv., 
6). He gives gracious promises to him who asks favors of Him direCtly, and of the 
Father in His name (John xiv., 13, 14; John xv., 16, and John xvi., 23, 26). 
We may not ask in the name of any other (John xiv., 6), nor may we invoke 
any other, for that is an act of religious service, and all religious service is pre- 
rogative to God (Matt. iv., 10). 


2. Ifit be said that an Epistle of Cyril, that to Flavian, is approved by the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council, that is true ; but we must not consider Leo’s views 
as passed on, or approved, by the Council, farther than they examined them. 
They did not have before them Leo’s private opinions that saints in heaven pray 
for us, and hence did not approve them. Indeed, Cyril’s Anathema X. cer- 
tainly makes all Mediation in heaven prerogative to God the Word, and as Inter- 
cession is now its chief part, it therefore makes that prerogative to Him and for- 
bids as an error and heresy the notion that any saint there or any other creature 
there can share it with Him. 


Before dismissing this Anathema X. of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, I would 
say that in the West, in the middle ages and even since, Cyril’s and the 
Church’s way of ascribing to God the Word the whole Office and Functions of 
the High Priesthood, the divine things, like hearing prayer and searching the 
heart, as being prerogative to Him as God, and the human things such as pray- 
ing, suffering, and dying, in accordance with the doctrine of Economic Appro- 
priation, has, alas! been lost sight of too much, as a sequence of the invo- 
cation of saints and of angels which had come in contrary to it; for, as St. 
Athanasius, followed by St. Cyril, states, the aim of the dodtrine is to prevent 


382 Act I. of “Ephesus. 


he preached the same dogmas, and even worse ones. And not only 


the worship of a mere creature, the Nestorian Christ, that is, in effect, saint 
worship. See in proof their language on pages 237-240 in passage 13 of Athan- 
asius there. The English Reformers therefore and those of the Continent seem 
not to have known much of it, though had they it would have been an impor- 
tant and forceful weapon in their hands against that invocation of saints which 
they so much opposed, and for that worship of God alone (Matt. iv., 10), for 
which so many of them like St. Thomas Cranmer, St. Nicholas Ridley, and St. 
Hugh Latimer, and other sainted prelates, presbyters and people gave their 
lives and went up at once to heaven, as the martyrs of the Ante Nicene times 
had died for the same truth and mounted by the same path tothe glory of 
heaven. 


Yet the Reformers (to whom, now praising Him in heaven, God the Son 
grant a blessed resurrection when He comes to reign on this earth), though they 
did not fully know, and hence did not follow Cyril’s terminology on Economic 
Appropriation as fully as might be desired, nevertheless did follow the great 
idea embodied in that do¢trine, that we must pray to God alone, and hence in 
Christ, not at all to His humanity, but to God the Word alone, for as Cyril and 
they agree, every act of religious service, be it prayer, bowing, or any other is 
prerogative to God. And in the Third Part of the Homily against Peril of 
Idolatry they very justly condemn such excuses as du/ia, and datreta, to excuse 
idolatry as from the devil ( pages 240, 241 of the edition of the Society for Pro- 
moting Christian Knowledge). On account of their noble work in bringing 
back the doétrine of Ephesus for the worship of God alone ( Matt. iv., 10), we 
follow the example of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, who, in gratitude for 
what Cyril had done against creature-worship, raised the shout, ‘‘Hzernal be 
the memory of Cyril!’ So we, in gratitude for that noble work of his and for 
the noble work of the English Reformers against the invocation, that is, the 
worship of creatures, and of images painted and graven, say, Eternal be the 
memory of Cyril!’ Eternal be the memory of the English Reformers, and of 
all the Reformers and Restorers of true religion under all the covenants ! Cyril 
was not without human failings, nor were the apostles, nor were any of the 
God-alone-worshipping Reformers of the Christian Covenant, nor were those 
of the Mosaic Covenant, nor were those under the Patriarchal Dispensations; 
yet we do not expect men to be God. But we appreciate that good which Cod 
called them to do, and their faithfulness in doing it. And if we did otherwise 
we should be indeed base and wicked, for what we are in freedom from idolatry 
and in blessings spiritual and temporal, we owe, under God, to our Reformers, 
and we should go on and finish their work by restoring all the dodtrine, disci- 
pline, and rite of the Six Ecumenical Councils and of the Ante Nicene Church. 
For the end of a full Reformation is a full return to all that was in the beginning, 
as in the case of the successive Reformations under the Mosaic Covenant. For 
instance, the Jews reformed in Babylon, but they did not fully restore their 
‘priesthood to their functions, and their religion to its former state fully, till they 
returned to Jerusalem. So should we restore all that was lost in the ages of 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 988 


did he teach those things before he received the documents, but he 


idolatry. But we come now to quote the Second Part of the Homily of the 
Reformers of the Church of England Concerning Prayer, to show how thor- 
oughly they restored Cyril’s and the Universal Church’s do¢trine in his 
Anathemas VIII. and X., that we may pray to no one but God, nor give bowing 
nor any other act of religious service to any but God. Perhaps the opinion of 
Augustine below may be too favorable, but its do¢trineis correct. With the other 
Homilies, it is approved by Article XX XV. as containing “a godly and whole- 
some doctrine and necessary for these times.’ 1 quote: 


“THE SECOND PART OF THE HOMILY CONCERNING PRAYER. 


In the first part of this Sermon ye heard the great necessity, and also the 
great force, of devout and earnest prayer declared and proved unto you, both by 
divers weighty testimonies, and also by sundry good examples of holy Scripture. 
Now shall you learn whom you ought to call upon, and to whom ye ought always 
to direct your prayers. 


Weare evidently taught in God’s holy Testament, that Almighty God is the 
only fountaiu and wellspring of all goodness, and that whatsoever we have in 
this world, we receive it only at His hands. To this effect serveth the place of 
St. James: very good and perfect gift, saith he, cometh from ubove, and pro- 
ceedeth from the Father of lights (a). To this effect also serveth the testimony 
of Paul in divers places of his Epistles, witnessing that ¢he spirit of wisdom, the 
spirit of knowledge and revelation, yea, every good and heavenly gift, as faith, 
hope, charjty, gvace,and peace, cometh only and solely of God (6). In consider- 
ation whereof he bursteth out into a sudden passion and saith, O man, what 
thing hast thou which thou hast not received? (c). Therefore, whensoever we 
need or lack any thing pertaining either to the body or the soul, it behoveth us 
to run only unto God, who is the only giver of all good things. Our Saviour 
Christ in the Gospel, teaching his disciples how they should pray, sendeth them 
to the Father in his name, saying Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye 
ask the Father in my name, he will give it unto you (d). And in another place: 
When ye pray, pray after this sort, Our Father, which artin heaven, &c. (6). 
And doth not God himself, by the mouth of his Prophet David, will and com- 
mand us to call upon him?(/). The Apostle wisheth grace and peace to all 
them that call on the Name of the Lord and of his Son Jesus Christ: ( g) as doth 
also the Prophet Joel, saying, dud zt shall come to pass, that whosoever call on 
the Name of the Lord shall be saved (h). 


Thus then it is plain by the infallible word of truth and life, that in all our 


(2). Janies1., 17: 

(6). YRowm,)1), 7; 'V.,1-5; 1. Cor, xii), 58: ph. 1.. 1 11. 5.1 LHeSs. aii, σὰς 
{τ σε 7. 

(dz). John xvi., 23. 

(δ). Matt. vi., 9; Luke xi., 2. 

G7) ses le ΖΕ: 

δὴ): le Cont, 2).2: 

(2). Joel ii., 32; Acts ii., 21. 


984 Act I. of Ephesus. 


has taught things much worse from the time that he received them 
till the present day (706). 


necessities we must flee unto God, direct our prayers unto him, call upon his 
holy Name, desire help at his hands, and at NO OTHER’S. Whereof if ye will yet 
have a further reason, mark that which followeth. There are certain conditions 
most requisite to be found in every such a one that must be called upon, which 
if they be not found in him unto whom we pray, then doth our prayer avail us 
nothing, but is altogether in vain. . The first is this, that he to whom we make 
our prayers be able to help us. The second is, that he will help us. The third 
is, that he be such a one as may hear our prayers. The fourth is, that he under- 
stand better than we ourselves what we lack and how far we have need of help. 
If these things be to be found in any other saving only God, then may we law- 
fully call upon some other besides God. But what man is so gross but he well 
understandeth that these things are only proper to him which is omnipotent and 
knoweth all things, even the very secrets of the heart, (1) that is tosay, only and 
to God alone? Whereof it followeth, that we must call neither upon angel nor 
yet upon saint, but only and solely upon God. As St. Paul doth write: How 
shall men call upon him in whom they have not believed? (7). So that invoca- 
tion or prayer may not be made without faith in him on whom we call, but that 
we must first believe in him, before we can make our prayers unto him : where- 
upon we must only and solely pray unto God. For to say that we should believe 
either in angel or saint or in any other living creature were most horrible blas- 
phemy against God and hts holy word ; neither ought this fancy enter into the 
heart of any Christian man, because we are expressly taught in the word of the 
Lord only to repose our faith in the blessed Trinity, in whose only Name we are 
also baptized according to the express commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ 
in the last of Matthew (2). 


But that the truth hereof may the better appear, even to them that be most 
simple and nnlearned, let us consider what prayer is. St. Augustine calleth it 
‘‘a lifting up of the mind to God, that is tosay, an humble and lowly pouring 
out of the heart to God.”’ (1). Isidorus saith, that ‘‘ it is an affection of the heart 
and not a labour of the lips.’’ (7). So that, by these places, true prayer doth 
consist not so much in the outward sound and voice of words, as in the inward 
groaning and crying of the heart to God. Now then, is there any angel, any 
virgin, any patriarch or prophet among the dead, that can understand or know 
the meaning of the heart? The Scripture saith 1} zs God that searcheth the 
heart and reins, and that he only knoweth the hearts of the children of men (n). 
As for the Saints, they have so little knowledge of the secrets of the heart, that 
many of the ancient fathers greatly doubt whether they know anything at all 


(z). I. John iii., 20; Ps. xliv., 21. 

(G7) ΕΟ Στὴ: 

(2). Matt. xxviii., τὸ. 

(ἢ: De Spir. et Lit. Cap.*5o. 

(m). DeSummo Bono, cap. viii., Lib. iii. 

(n). Ps. vii-, 9; Rev. ii., 23; Jer. xvii., 10; 2 Chron. vi., 30. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 385 


fidus, Bishop of Joppa, said: 'The most God-fearing Bishops 


that is commonly done on earth. And, albeit some think they do, yet St. Au- 
gustine, a doctor of great authority and also antiquity, hath this opinion of them 
that they know no more what we do on earth, than we know what they do in 
heaven (0). For proof whereof he allegeth the words of Esay the Prophet, 
where it is said, Abraham ts ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not |p). 
His mind therefore is this, not that we should put any religion in worshipping 
them or praying unto them, but that we should honour them by following their 
virtuous and godly life (7). For as he witnesseth in another place, the Martyrs 
and holy men in times past were wont after their death to be remembered and 
named of the priest at Divine Service, but never to be invocated or called upon. 
And why so? ‘‘Because the priest,’ saith he, ‘‘is God’s priest, and not theirs:” 
whereby he is bound to call upon God, and not upon them (7). 


Thus you see, that the authority both of Scripture and also of Augustine 
doth not permit that we should pray unto them. O that all men would studi- 
ously read and search the Scriptures / (5) then should they not be drowned in 
ignorance, but should easily perceive the truth, as well of this point of doctrine, 
as of allthe rest. For there doth the Holy Ghost plainly teach us, that Christ 
zs our only mediator and intercessor with God, and that we must seek and run 
ἴο πο other. J/fany man sinneth, saith St. John, we have an advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the propitiation for our sins (t). 
St. Paul also saith, There 15 one God, and one mediator between God and man, 
even the man Jesus Christ (uw). Whereunto agreeth the testimony of our Saviour 
himself, witnessing that 220 man cometh to the Father, but only by him, who is 
the way, the truth, the life, (v) yea, and the only door whereby we must enter 
into the kingdom of heaven, (w) because God is pleased in no other but in 
him (#). For which cause also he crieth and calleth unto us, that we should 
come unto him, saying, Come unto me, all ye that labour and be heavy laden, 
and I shall refresh you (vy). Would Christ have us so necessarily come unto 
him? and shall we most unthankfully leave him, and run unto other? This is 
even that which God so greatly complaineth of by his Prophet Jeremy, saying, 
My people have committed two great offences ; they have forsaken me the foun- 
tain of the waters of life, and have digged to themselves broken pits, that can 
hold no water (z). Is not that man, think you, unwise that will run for water 


(0). Lib. de Cura pro Mort agenda, c. 13. 
(f). Is. Ixiii., 16. 

(g). De vera Relig. cap. 55. 

(7). Lib. xxii., de Civ. Dei, cap. 10. 

(s). John v., 39. 

(2 ἘΠ ΟΝ 11,0 1. 2. 

(ze). CI Dimas 1, ’s- 

(v). John Xiv., 6. 

(w). John x., 9,1. Tim. ii., 5, and Heb. vii., 25-28 
(x). Matt. xvii., 5. ; 

(vy). Matt. xi., 28. 

(5). Fer 11: 13: 


986 cht) of Liphesus: 


Acacius and the lord Theodotus, who are present also, and who had 


to a little brook, when he may as well go to the head spring? Even so may his. 
wisdom be justly suspected that will flee unto Saints in time of necessity, when 
he may boldly and without fear declare his grief and direct his prayer unto the 
Lord himself. 


If God were strange, or dangerous to be talked withal, then might we justly 
draw back, and seek to some other. But the Lord is nigh unto them that call 
upon him in faith and truth; (a) and the prayer of the humble and meek hath 
always pleased him (6). What if we besinners? shall we not therefore pray unto. 
God? or shall we despair to obtain any thing at his hands? Why did Christ 
then teach us to ask forgiveness of our sins, saying, Aud forgive us our tres- 
passes, as we forgive them that trespass against us ? (c) Shall we think that the 
Saints are more merciful in hearing sinners than God? David saith, that ¢he 
Lord 15 full of compassion and mercy, slow to anger, and of great kindness (a). 
St. Paul saith, that he zs rich in mercy towards all them that call upon him (e). 
And he himself by the mouth of his Prophet ἔβαν, saith, For a little while have 
L forsaken thee, but with great compassion will I gather thee: for a moment in 
mine anger I have hid my face from thee, but with everlasting mercy have I had 
compassion upon thee (f) ‘Therefore the sins of any man ought not to withhold 
him froti praying unto the Lord his God, but, if he be truly penitent and stead- 
fast in faith, let him assure himself that the Lord will be merciful unto him and 
hear his prayers. 


O but I dare not (will some man say) trouble God at all times with my 
prayers: we see that in kings’ houses, and courts of princes, men cannot be ad- 
mitted, unless they first use the help and mean of some special nobleman, to. 
come unto the speech of the king, and to obtain the thing that they would have. 
To this reason doth St. Ambrose answer very well, writing upon the first chap_ 
ter tothe Romans: ‘‘Therefore,’’ saith he, ‘‘we used to go unto the king by 
officers and noblemen, because the king is a mortal man, and knoweth not to 
whom he may commit the government of the commonwealth. But to have God 
our friend from whom nothing is hid, we need not any helper that should 
further us with his good word, but only a devout and godly mind,” (¢). And, 
if it be so, that we need one to intreat for us, why may we not content ourselves. 
with that one Mediator, which is at the right hand of God the Father, 
and there dzveth for ever to make intercession for us? (h). As the blood 
of Christ did redeem us on the cross, and cleanse us from our sins, 
even so it is now able to save all them that come unto God by it. For Christ, 


(2) se PSacxlvy.4 τὸ. 

(6). Ps. cxlv., 18; John iv., 23, 24; Heb. xi., 6. 
(ε). Mattewis, 12. 

(1). Ἐ5-: Ὁ111:..8. 

(6). Ephes. ii., 4; Rom. x., 12. 

OF): ἸΞῚῚ νυ 7.18. 

(g). Ambros. super cap. i., Rom. 

(hk). I. Tim. ii., 5; Rom. viii., 34; Heb. vii., 25. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 387 


discussions with him, so that they were even in peril from them in 


sitting in heaven, hath an everlasting priesthood, and always prayeth to his 
Father for them that be penitent, obtaining by virtue of his wounds, which are 
evermore in the sight of God, not only perfect remission of our sins, but also all 
other necessaries that we lack in this world: so that zs only mediation is suf- 
Jjicient in heaven, and needeth no other’s to help him (2). 


Why then do we pray one for another in this life ἢ some man perchance will! 
here demand. Forsooth we are willed soto do by the express commandment. 
both of Christ and his disciples, to declare therein, as well the faith that we 
have in Christ towards God, as also the mutual charity that we bear one towards 
another, in that we pity our brother’s case, and make our humble petition to 
God for him (7). But, that we should pray unto Saints, neither have we any 
commandment in allthe Scripture, nor yet example which we may safely follow. 
So that being done without authority of God’s word, it lacketh the ground 
of faith, and therefore cannot be acceptable before God (4). For whatsoever is 
not of faith ts sin : (2) and the Apostle saith, that fazth cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God (m), 


Yet thou wilt object further, that the Saints in heaven do pray for us, and 
that their prayer proceedeth of an earnest charity that they have towards their 
brethren on earth. Whereto it may be well answered, first, that no man knoweth 
whether they do pray for us, or no. And, if any will go about to prove it by the 
nature of charity, concluding that, because they did pray for men on earth, 
therefore they do much more the same now in heaven ; then may it be said by 
the same reason, that as oft as we do weep on earth they do also weep in heaven, 
because while they lived in this world it is most certain and sure they did so. 
As for that place which is written in the Apocalypse, namely, that the angel did 
offer up the prayers of the saints upon the golden altar, (7) it is properly meant, 
and ought properly to be understood, of those saints that are yet living on earth, 
and not of them that are dead; otherwise what need were it that the angel 
should offer up their prayers, being now in heaven before the face of Al- 
mighty God? But, admit the Saints do pray for us, yet do we not know how, 
whether specially for them which call upon them, or else generally for all men, 
wishing well toevery man alike. If they pray specially for them which call upon 
them, then it is like they hear our prayers, and also know our hearts’ desire. 
Which thing to be false, it is already proved, both by the Scriptures, and also 
by the authority of Augustine. 


Let us not therefore put our trust or confidence in the Saints or Martyrs 
that be dead. Let us not call upon them, nor desire help at their hands : but 
let us always lift up our hearts toGod in the name of his dear Son Christ; for 


——————E—— EEE ee eee 
(z): Heb. vil., 24;,1x., §2, 24, 25; x., 12, and. John xiv:, 6. 
(7). Matt. v., 44; vi., 9-13; James v., 16; Col. iii., 3; I. Tim. ii., 1, 2, 
(k). Heb. xi., 6. 
(ἢ. Rom. xiv., 23. 
(m). Roni. X., 17. 
(5). Rev. Viiisy 35 4. 


388 Act I. of Ephesus. 


regard to certain matters (707), can say that he even persists to this 
day in the same teachings and doctrines. 


whose sake as God hath promised to hear our prayers, so he will truly perform 
it. Invocation is a thing proper unto God: whichif we attribute unto the Saints, 
it soundeth to their reproach, neither can they well bear it at our hands. When 
Paul had healed a certain lame man, which was impotent in his feet, at Lystra, 
the people would have done sacrifice to him and Barnabas ; who, renting their 
clothes, refused it, and exhorted them to worship the true God (0). Likewise in 
the Revelation, when St. John fell before the angel’s feet to worship him, the 
angel would not permit him to do it, but commanded him that he should wor- 
ship God (2). Which examples declare unto us, that the saints and angels in 
heaven will not have us do any honour unto them that is due and proper unto 
God. Heonly is our Father; he only is omnipotent; he only knoweth and 
understandeth all things; he only can help us at all times and in all places ; he 
suffereth the sun to shine upon the good and the bad; he feedeth the young ravens 
that cry unto him ; he saveth both man and beast ; he will not that any one hair 
of our head shall perish, (q) but is always ready to help and preserve all them 
that put their trust in him, according as he hath promised, saying, Before they 
call, I will answer ; and whiles they speak, 7 will hear (r). Let us not there- 
fure any thing mistrust his goodness ; let us not fear to come before the throne 
of his mercy; let us not seek the aid and help of Saints; but /e¢ ws come 
boldly ourselves, (s) nothing doubting but God for Christ’s sake, 72 whom he ts 
well pleased, (¢) will hear us without a spokesman, and accomplish our desire in 
all such things as shall be agreeable to his most holy will. Sosaith Chrysostom 
an ancient doctor of the Church ; (7) and so must we steadfastly believe, not be- 
cause he saith it, but much more because it is the do¢trine of our Saviour Christ 
himself, who hath promised, that if we pray to the Father in his name we shall 
certainly be heard, both to the relief of our necessities, and also to the salvation 
of our souls, (v) which he hath purchased unto us, zot with gold or silver, but 
with his precious blood (w) shed once for all upon the cross (7). 


To him therefore with the Father and the Holy Ghost, three Persons and 
one God, be all honour, praise, and glory for ever and ever. Amen.’’ 


In the Homily of the Church of England on the Nativity, which is approved 
by its Thirty-Fifth Article as containing ‘‘a godly and wholesome dottrine, and 
necessary for these times,’’ we find the following testimony for the do¢trine that 
the Word in his Divinity alone does the divine things of His High Priesthood 


(0). Acts xiv., 8-18. 

(2). Rev. xix., 10; xxii., 8, 9. 

(4). Matt. v., 45; Ps. exlvii., 9; xxxvi., 6; Luke xii., 7; xxi., 18. 

{r). Isai. Ixv., 24. 

(5). Hebsav-; τό: Σ-, 19-22- 

(ὃ. Matt. xvii., 5. 

{u). Chrysost. ν᾽ Hom. de Profect. Evang. 

(v.) John xiv., 13, 14; XV., 16; Xvi., 23-27. 

(τυ). 1. Pet.i., 18, 19. 

(x). Acts xx,, 28; Heb. x., 12, 14; Heb. xii., 12, and I. Peter ii., 24, 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 389 


And we beg them and ask them to swear on the Holy Gospels 


and Mediatorial work, such as hearing our prayers, searching and knowing the 
heart, etc., and against the error of Nestorius that Christ’s mere humanity, a 
creature alone, is our High Priest: 


‘For, as truly as God liveth, so truly was Jesus Christ the true Messias and 
Saviour of the world, even the same Jesus which, as this day, was born of the 
Virgin Mary, without all help of man, only by the power and operation of the 
Holy Ghost. 

“Concerning whose nature and substance, because divers and sundry heresies 
are risen in these our days through the motion and suggestion of Satan, therefore 
it shall be needful and profitable for your instruction to speak a word or two also 
of this part. We are evidently taught in the Scripture, that our Lord and 
Saviour Christ consisteth of two several natures; of his manhood, being thereby 
perfect man; and of his Godhood, being thereby perfect God. It is written: 
The Word, that is to say, the second person in Trinity, became flesh (a). God 
sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, fulfilled those things 
which the law could not (ὦ). Christ, being in form of God, took on him the 
form of a servant, and was made like unto man, being found in shape asa 
man (Cc). God was shewed in flesh, justified in spirit, seen of angels, preached 
to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received upin glory (d). Alsoin 
another place: There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, even 
the man Jesus Christ (e). These be plain places for the proof and declaration 
of both natures united and knit together in one Christ. Let us diligently con- 
sider and weigh the works that he did whiles he lived on earth, and we shall 
thereby also perceive the self-same thing to be most true: In that he did hunger 
and thirst, eat and drink, sleep and wake; in that he preached his Gospel to the 
people; in that he wept and sorrowed for Jerusalem; in that he paid tribute for 
himself and Peter; in that he died and suffered death; what other thing did he 
else declare but only this, that he was perfect man as we are? For which cause 
he is called in holy Scripture sometime ¢he sou of David, sometime the son of 
man, sometime the soz of Mary, sometime the soz of Joseph, and so forth (/). 
Now in that he forgave sins; in that he wrought miracles; in that he did cast 
out devils; in that he healed men with his only word; in that he knew the 
thoughts of men’s hearts; in that he had the seas at his commandment; in that 
he walked on the water; in that he rose from death to life; in that he ascended 
into heaven, and so forth; what other thing did he shew therein but only that 
he was perfect God, coequal with his Father as touching his Deity? Therefore 
he saith, Zhe Father and 7 are all one: (g) which is to be understood of his 


(a). Johni., 14. 

(δ). Rom. viii., 3. 

[6 Phil, τε 6... 8; 

{᾿- bite 11: 16. 

(Ὁ 1. Dim, ΤΕ. 

(f). Matt. i., 1; xvi., 13; Mark vi., 3; John vi., 42. 
{5} JOM πὶ, 20; 


990 Act I, of Ephesus. 


which lie before us, to tell, for the credit and confirmation of the 


Godhead; for, as touching his manhood, he saith, The Father is greater than I 
am (h). 

“Where are now those Marcionites, that deny Christ to have been born in 
flesh, or to have been perfect man? Where are now those Arians, which deny 
Christ to have been perfect God, of equal substance with the Father? If there 
be any such, ye may easily reprove them with these testimonies of God’s word, 
and such other: whereunto I am most sure they shall never be able to answer. 
For the necessity of our salvation did require such a Mediator and Saviour, as 
under one Person should be a partaker of both natures. It was requisite he 
should be man: it wasalso requisite he should be God. For as the transgression 
came by man, so was it meet the satisfaCtion should be made by man. And, be- 
cause death, according to St. Paul, zs the just stipend and reward of sin, (1) there- 
fore to appease the wrath of God, and to satisfy his justice, it was expedient that 
our Mediator should be such a one as might take upon him the sins of mankind, 
and sustain the due punishment thereof, namely, death (7). Moreover, he came 
in flesh, and in the self-same flesh ascended into heaven, to declare and testify 
unto us, that all faithful people which steadfastly believe in him shall likewise 
come unto the same mansion place whereunto he, being our chief captain, is 
gone before (#). Lastof all, he became man, that we thereby might receive the 
greater comfort, as well in our prayers as also in our adversity; considering 
with ourselves, that we have a Mediator that is true man as we are, who also 75 
touched with our infirmities, and was tempted even in like sort as we are (0). 
For these and sundry other causes it was most needful he should come, as he 
did, in the flesh. But, because no creature, in that he is only a creature, hath 
or may have power to destroy death and give life, to overcome hell and purchase 
heaven, to remit sins and give righteousness, therefore it was needful that our 
Messias, whose proper duty and office that was, should be not only full and perfect 
man, but also full and perfect God, to the entent he might more fully and per- 
fe@tly make satisfaGtion for mankind. God saith This ἐς my well beioved Son, 
in whom I am well pleased (m). By which place we learn that Christ appeased 
and quenched the wrath of his Father, not in that he was only the Son of man, 
but much more in that he was the Son of God.’’ 


Article XXXI. excellently and Cyrillianly guards the soleness ‘‘Of the one 
oblation of Christ finished upon the cross,” and, by implication, the soleness of 
His High Priestly Sacrifice there, and condemns the Romish doctrine opposed 
to it. Wesee from this how closely the right doctrine on the Eucharist is con- 
nected with the right doétrine on the sacrifice of Christ and of His High Priestly 


(A). John xiv., 28. 
(12): ότι σἱ. 25: 
2) Heb ii; 12:7: 
(2). Heb. vi., 19, 20. 
(2). Heb. iv., 15. 
(m). Matt. iii., 17. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 391 


Records of the Acts (708), what they heard day before yesterday 
from Nestorius himself. 


Office, I quote the whole of this “Article XX XI. Of the One Oblation of Christ 
jinished upon the Cross. 


‘“The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ; 
and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the 
sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer 
Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- 
phemous fables, and dangerous deceits.”’ 


Now just as Scripture teaches that there is in the Christian Covenant but 
one High Priest, God the Word, who as such gave Himself for us and in His 
humanity suffered and died on the tree : just as there is but one Mediator (I. Tim. 
ii., 5), and but one Advocate and but one Intercessor now in heaven (I. John ii., 
I, 2; Heb. vii., 25), our great High Priest, God the Word, who as God hears our 
prayers, and as Man prays to His Father for us (see passages in this note above 
from Holy Writ and from Cyril and others in setting forth its doctrine), so there 
is but one sacrifice of itself absolutely propitiatory, that is the Son’s on the 
cross. The sacrifices of blood under the ancient covenants, the Adamic, the 
Noachian, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, were all foretypical of that, as the 
New Testament teaches, and were not absolutely, that is, not in themselves pro- 
pitiatory, but so relatively only, that is, as foretypes of the one absolute sacrifice, 
and as antecendently applying to the offerers the pardon for sin which was to be 
wrought by that ‘‘oxe sacrifice for sins for ever”? on Calvary (Heb. x.. 12). 
And so Paul says that Christ died ‘‘ for the redemption of the transgressions that 
were under the first testament’’ (Heb. ix., 15). And John goes further and ἡ 
writes that ‘‘ He is the propitiation,’’ not merely for the sins under the 
Mosaic Covenant, which was of special interest to the Jews to whom 
Paul was writing in that passage of Hebrews, not merely “for the sins”? 
in the three Covenants before it, but that ‘‘ He zs the propitiation for 
our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
world,’? I.Johnii.,1, 2. The proof that that archieratic and prerogative work of 
God the Son by his humanity is sole is as clear in Holy Writ and in the Third 
Council of the whole Church, as that His High Priesthood, and His Mediation, 
and His High Priestly Advocacy and Intercession are all sole and prerogative 
to God the Word. Heis the One Mediator (I. Tim. ii., 5), whose archieratic 
work now, since He has entered the Most Holy Place above, is to intercede for 
us. Acts xx., 28, ascribes to God the Word, by Economic Appropriation, the 
sacrificial and archieratic bloodshedding of His Humanity. Paul brings out 
the glory and soleness of His archieratic work in Hebrews vii., 15-28 inclusive; 
Heb. ix., 1-28 inclusive, and Heb. x., 1-27. I have said that the foretypical 
bloody sacrifices of all the Covenants before. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary were 
only relatively propitiatory, relatively that is, to Christ’s sole absolutely pro- 
fitiatory sacrifice on the cross, as being its foretypes and as applying by antici- 


392 Act 7. of Ephesus. 


Interlocution of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, on his [\Nestorius’] 
blasphemies : 


pation to the offerers the forgiveness of their sins to be wrought by the one sole 
absolutely propitiatory sacrifice on Calvary. 

So we, under the Christian Dispensation, offer the leavened bread and the 
mingled cup of wine and water as the aftertypes of that one sole absolutely pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice of Calvary; but the Eucharist is only relatively propitiatory, 
relatively that is, to that sole absolutely propitiatory sacrifice as an aftertype of 
it, and as applying to all who partake of it rightly the pardon of sins wrought 
by it and all its other blessings. 

And there is but one absolutely propitiatory High Priest, who propitiates. 
the Father for us by His Mediation, which includes two things, 1, His offering 
Himself to the Father ‘‘once_ for all’’ (Heb. x., Io, 12) on the cross: and, 


2, His present Intercession for us which is all sufficient and is pre- 
rogative to Him, as the sacrifice and intercession for Israel on the day of Atone- 
ment in the Holy of Holies were both prerogative to the Israelitish High Priest. 
‘The priests of the Aaronic ministry and the patriarchal priests before them 
offered bloody offerings, ‘‘ carnal,” that is, ‘‘ fleshly ordinances imposed on them 
until the time of Reformation’ (Heb. ix., 10), when Christ should come, and do 
away sacrifices of blood and of flesh and substitute for them spiritual offerings, 
which are higher and nobler and better because they are spiritual, and among 
them that ‘‘ pure offering’? which Malachi predicted should be offered in every 
place among the Gentiles when he foretold the abolition of the offerings of the 
Aaronic Priesthood (Mal.i., 10, 11), that wzbloody sacrifice of Christ’s priestly 
people every where (I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i.,6). Yet though there were 
priests in the lower sense of offering foretypical sacrifices of mere flesh before 
- Christ, and though as offerers of spiritual sacrifices (I. Peter ii., 5, 9.) we are 
priests in a much higher sense than the sons of Aaron or any other foretypical 
priests were, nevertheless we are priests, as they were, relatively only, relatively 
that is, to the sole Offerer of a sacrifice absolutely propitiatory in itself, even the 
sacrifice of Himself on Calvary : for they were related to Him as offering the 
foretype of it, the Passover Lamb, and we the aftertypes ofit, the leavened bread 
and wine. As has been said, those foretypes, and those aftertypes draw all their 
efficacy and blessing not from themselves but from that absolutely propitiatory 
sacrifice of the Son on the tree: by which ‘‘ove sacrifice for sins for ever,” 
“276, God the Word, who alone could offer it, ‘‘hath perfected forever them 
that are sanétified,’’ (Heb. x., 12, 14). It can never be repeated by any creature. 
Well therefore do the blessed Reformers say in their XX XIst. Article that ‘‘ the 
sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer 
Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt were blas- 
phemous fables and dangerous decetits.”” For that is an assault on the doé¢trine 
of the Third Council that God the Word is the Sole Offerer of Himself. And 
well do they condemn in their XXIId. Article the Invocation of Saints, for it 
blasphemously gives Christ’s archieratic office of Intercession on high to mere 
creatures, though it is all prerogative to the Word. So that our watchwords of 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 393 


Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said: Since our business is not on 


eee 


the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and of the Third World Council which he led, must 
ever be in accordance with its Decisions and with Anathema IX. of the Fifth 
World Synod: God the Word is the Sole High Priest, in His Divinity to hear our 
prayers and see our other acts of worship to Him, and to search our hearts andto 
know exaétly what is best for us; and in His humanity to intercede with the 
Father for that, and to worship Him. And no creature, be it the Virgin Mary, 
or any martyr, or other saint, or any archangel, or angel, can share the High 
Priestly Intercessory Office Work and Functions and Dignities and Glories of 
God the Word! No creature can share the bowing, the invocation, and the 
other acts of religious service offered by men to Him as High Priest and Inter- 
cessor, for no creature has His infinite attributes of omniscience, omnipresence 
and omnipotence to hear and answer us; and all worship to Him is prerogative 
to Him as God the Word, for His human nature can not share His worship 
(Matt. iv., το; compare Anathemas VIII. and X. of Cyril and of Ephesus, and 
Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which so decree in accordance 
with that text: compare Cyril’s language in note 183, pages 79-1 28 against the 
worship of Christ’s humanity, and notice how he quotes Scripture againstit, and 
for the worship in the Son of God of the Logos alone). So he says, One Sole High 
Priest, God the Word in His humanity! One Sole absolutely propitiatory 
Sacrifice for sins forever, offered by the Word in His humanity, all sufficient 
and never to be repeated! One sole Object of Prayer in the Son, God the 
Word in the temple of His humanity! One sole Intercessor on High, God the 
Word by His humanity! And the Substance of God the Word’s Divinity, 
and the substance of His humanity are in heaven alone! These are funda- 
mental doftrines of the Universal Faith as defined by the Third Council and 
the Fifth, and the opposer of them if a cleric is deposed by them, and if a laic 
is anathematized by them. But see pages 102, 103, 346 and 356, notes. 


Before dismissing Cyril’s Anathema X. ἠδέ us state summarily how tt and 
Anathema VIII. of Cyril, and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod, (which are all 
indissolubly linked together), ave maintained in the Christian world and tn that 
which calls itself Christian. 

And, I, as to the Unreformed Communions. 


1. THe GREEK CHURCH still nominally receives them, but has practically 
departed from the great principle of Anathema X. that God the Word is our 
only Mediator and Intercessor above, Who, however, uses His humanity to do 
the human things, such as praying to God, hungering, thirsting, suffering and 
dying. For in its present corrupt state it has many Mediators and Intercessors 
with God, that is, the Virgin Mary, martyrs and other departed saints, arch- 
angels and angels, to whom it has blasphemously assigned Christ’s prerogative 
of interceding in heaven formen. Athanasius and Cyril prove that the Son is 
God, by the fact that He is bowed to and prayed to, for prayer and bowing are 
acts of religious service. See the 13 passages quoted from St. Athanasius on 
pages 217-240 οὗ volume I. of Nicaea in this Set. St. Cyril approves the doctrine 
of St. Athanasius on pages 237-240, id. Athanasius there sets forth the doctrine 


394 Act 1,7. Ephesus; 


ordinary (709) matters, but on the chief matter of all, I mean on the 


that in Christ we pray to nothing but God the Word, and that we are ‘‘ ¢ruly 
worshippers of God, because we invoke no creature, nor any common Man, but 
Him Who by Nature has come out of God [that is, God the Word] and is the 
very Son, even that very One become man, but yet nothing less the Lord Himself, 
and God and Saviour,’’ page 238, id. Soin his Epistle to John of Antioch, St. 
Cyril professed to follow St. Athanasius every where. And see under proper 
terms in the index for more from him against Man-Worship. Now the High 
Priestly Works of receiving prayer and searching the heart, which, in the case of 
the Son, are prerogative to His Divine Nature alone, and which do not at all be- 
long to His humanity, are practically given by the degenerate unreformed 
Greeks of our time tothe mere creatures just mentioned above. Hence they 
deny in effect and yet most clearly the doctrine of this Anathema X. of Cyril. 
And that Anti-Cyrillian and Anti-Six-Councils party have been in full control 
of the Eastern Church since the ninth century and have largely ruined it and 
caused its being wiped out in large portions of Asia and Africa, aye, even in 
some parts of Europe, as for instance, in parts of Albania and Bulgaria ; though 
in time a Reform will come in that Communion and with it a Restoration of all 
the doctrine of the Six Councils, including St. Cyril’s and Ephesus’ Anathemas 
VIII. and X. and Anathema IX of the Fifth Council. 


2. Thesame Anti-Cyrillian heresies hold sway at present in THE LATIN 
CHURCH, though it also professes in name at least to receive the Third Ecu- 
menical Council. 


3. Thesame is true of THE MONOPHYSITES, though they also profess to receive 
Ephesus and the two Ecumenical Councils before it. They reject the last three 
of the Six. 


4. THE NESTORIANS, against whom St. Cyril’s Anathemas VIII. and X. 
were aimed, still persist obstinately in the errors which those Anathemas con- 
demn, including the worship of Christ’s separate humanity, to which they have 
added the lower creature worship of bowing to departed saints, invoking them, 
etc., as well as the relative worship of the cross. They reject the last four of 
the Six World Synods. 


We come nov, II., to THE REFORMED COMMUNIONS: 


All these, without exception, restored to Christ His prerogatives of being the 
Only Sacrifice for men, the Only Mediator, the Only High Priest, and now the 
Only Intercessor on high. And they utterly abolished all invocation of creatures, 
for it in every form, direct or indirect, interferes with those prerogatives of the 
Sole Intercessor above. For those things the Reformers both of Britain and of 
the Continent deserve to be had in eternal memory as they will ever be. Their 
struggle against an idolatrous papacy and episcopacy was noble and in conso- 
nance with Revelations ii., 2. For the Romish episcopate is not a true Aposto- 
late in the sense of maintaining the faith of the Six Councils against idolatry, and ° 
therefore has no claim to obedience or to rule any where. Short and righteous 
and perfectly Six Councils work was made with their claims in England and a 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 395 


right Faith on Anointed (710), it is in order and proper for the 


sound anti-idolatrous Episcopate was put into their places. For the Church has 
always thrown out creature serving episcopates and put sound anti-creature-wor- 
shipping Bishops into their outraged and abused sees; for instance, the First 
Ecumenical Council did so in the case of the confessedly creature-serving Arians; 
the Second in the case of the creature-serving Macedonians; and the Third in 
the case of the creature-serving Nestorians, all of which sects had the Apostolic 
Succession in orders but had lost the succession in doctrine by turning creature 
worshippers. And as it was never permitted to any Orthodox presbyter, deacon, 
lower cleric, or laic to submit himself to such creature-serving prelates, or to 
commune with them, or with their heretical clergy, or to acknowledge them as 
Christian Bishops or clergy in any way, even where there was no Orthodox 
Bishop, so may no Orthodox God-alone-worshipping Six Councils Christian, be 
he cleric or laic, submit himself to any Romish or any other creature-invoking 
and idolatrous prelates or clerics, nor may he commune with such Anti-Third 
Council prelates, or with their heretical clergy, er acknowledge them as Chris- 
tian Bishops or clergy in any way until they reform and obey the Six Councils, 
and have it made clear that they have orders. This is the course already defined 
in the Six Councils, and we may not deviate from it nor can we without sin. To 
do otherwise would be to ruin the Reformation and the Faith. See to that effect 
all the Decisions of the Six Synods; and their Canons, especially the teaching of 
Canon VIII. of the First Council on the Novatians, and of its Canen XIX. on 
the Paulianists, of Canon VII. of the Second Synod on the Arians and Macedon- 
ians, and of the Canons of the Third Council on the Nestorians. So that when 
any one claims the rank and honor ofa bishop we must ask not merely whether 
he has the apostolic succession in orders, but also, according to Rev. ii., 2, and 
the Decisions of the whole Church in the Six Synods whether he holds to and 
blamelessly and energetically and courageously maintains all the do¢trine, dis- 
cipline, and rite of the the Six Ecumenical Councils. If he does not, regard 
him as an enemy of Christ and of His Universal Church and of its Holy-Ghost- 
led Decisions, and so will you act according to the law of God in Matt. xviii., 17, 
and Titus ili, 10. And among those Decisions of the whole Church we must 
guard the anti-creature-serving Canons VIII. and X. of Cyril which were ap- 
proved at Ephesus, and Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. He who 
‘opposes them, and makes Christ’s mere humanity, a creature, our Intercessor on 
high, and much more, (@ fortiori), by necessary implication, any lesser crea- 
ture, be it the Virgin Mary, any martyr, or other saint, or angel, robs Christ of 
His prerogative of being our Sole High Priest, Whose chief work now is interces- 
sion, andteaches the blasphemy that a mere creature may share the peculiar 
office work of God the Word; and so, according to the anathema at the end of 
Canon VIII. and according to that at the end of Canon X. of Ephesus which we 
are considering, is anathematized by this Holy Ghost led Council if he be a laic, 
and by its Canons is deposed if he bea cleric. See them and the Introduétion 
to them to that effect on pages 81-85 of Hammond's Canons of the Church, (N. 
Y. edition of 1844). The man that would admit the claim of a creature-invok- 


996 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


Bishops Theodotus and Acacius, who are truth-lovers and holy men, 


ing Bishop to the obedience of the Orthodox God-alone-worshipper (Matt. iv., 
10), and to jurisdi@tion any where, so long as he continues in his heresies, is 
himself a virulent heretic, and an enemy of Christ, of His Church, and of its 
Six Synods. 

While the Reformers restored ¢he doctrine of Cyril’s Anathemas VIII. and 
X. and placed again on Christ’s head the crown of His High Priesthood and Sole 
Intercessory Office in heaven, nevertheless because they knew not well his doc- 
trine of the Economic Appropriation to God the Word of the names and things 
of the Man put on by Him, they did not always use Cyrillian and Ephesine 
language. Wence that matter of the wording should be attended to in the 
future, in the revising here and there of the Formularies. 


I have spoken sufficiently of the English Formularies above. I have no 
space to go into full details as to the other Confessions of the Reformed for 
Christ’s Sole Mediatorial, High Priestly, and Sole Intercession above. I must 
confine myself to mentioning a few of the most important matters in connection 
with this theme. 

The Belgic Confession of A. Ὁ. 1561, by the martyr Guy DE BREs, in its 
Article XXVI. well defends the soleness of Christ’s (ntercession in heaven, and. 
condemns the error of invoking saints: and its Article XXI. defends the soleness 
and all sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice forsin and His High Priesthood, and in 
Articles VIII. and IX. the do¢trine of the Trinity is set forth, while Article X. 
teaches Christ’s Divinity, and Article XI. the doctrine that the Holy Ghost also 
is God,though with some schoolmen’s additions to the Six Councils’ doctrines on 
those topics, such additions being the Eternal Generation of the Son, and the 
double Procession of the Spirit. Article XVIII. sets forth the Incarnation, and 
Article XIX. the Two Natures of the Son. That however to which I would here 
call attention is the statement of the Sole Intercession of the Son. 


THE SOCINIANS, while differing from Nestorius on the Trinity, nevertheless 
agreed with him in making our Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor, a mere 
Man, and in making the exaltation mentioned in Philippians ii., 5-12 to mean 
the exaltation of Christ’s humanity; see in proof pages 132-136 of the English 
translation of Winer’s Confessions of Christendom (Clarks, Edinburgh, 1873). 
As a result of the controversy between Osiander the Lutheran, and Stancari, or, 
as the name is also spelled, Stancaro, the Socinian, the Third Article of the 
Formula of Concord condemns the Socinian assertion that the Mediator and 
Iligh Priest is a mere Man, and makes Him to be of Two Natures; see page 132 
of Winer’s work just mentioned. If we may trust the account given of Osian- 
der’s belief in the Article Stawcarists in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, 
he must have come very near Cyril’s and the Universal Church’s doctrine 
on the sacrifice of our Great High Priest being offered not for His own sinless 
humanity, but for our sinful hnmanity. That is Cyril’s teaching in his Longer 
Epistle above, on pages 261-267. In the article Stancarists the difference be- 
tween Osiander and Stancari is stated as follows: 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 397 


to tell, in accordance with the appeals of the most religious Bishop 


‘Osiander and his followers had maintained peculiar views respecting the 
atonement of our Lord, alleging that it was as God alone He offered it, for that 
as man Christ was under obligation to keep the divine law on his own account; 
and therefore, that he could not, by obeying the law, procure righteousness for 
others. The Stancarists went to the opposite extreme, and attributed the atone- 
ment to our Lord’s human nature alone, excluding from it altogether his divine 
nature. Further they maintained that the divine nature in its propriety had no 
existence in Christ, and that He was only called God the Word metaphorically.” 
The Stancarists’ theory on Christ’s offering and High Priesthood in some points 
resembled that of Nestorius. Cyril in his Anathema VIII. curses the Nestorians 
for applying the name of God to Christ’s humanity, a mere creature. 


The Socinians divided into two parties, on another question also, that is, as 
to worshipping the humanity of Christ, a question connected with their error of 
making Christ a mere human being. Cyril’s High Priest was God the Word, 
who does the divine things, that is, hearing prayer and searching the heart of 
the invoker, and knowing all things, by His infinite and prerogatively divine at- 
tributes of omnipresence and omniscience and Who does also the divine work of 
answering and delivering His invoker by His prerogatively divine attribute of 
omnipotence: and He does the human things, that is, hungering, thirsting, 
sleeping, waking, fasting, suffering and dying by His humanity. 

But Socinus’ mere creature-Christ, his mere creature High Priest, could not 
hear prayer and search the heart, nor answer it; and hence on their theory could 
not be prayed to, for that would be creature worship. And the more logical 
of them saw it and refused to worship him. They reasoned, as St. Athanasius 
writes, that if Christ be not God He can not be worshipped by bowing, prayer, or 
in any other way. And they reasoned as St. Cyril of Alexandria shows in note 
183 above, that the Nestorians should have reasoned, that if Christ be a mere 
man, that is, a mere creature, He can not be worshipped by bowing, prayer, orin 
any other way. But Socinus and others were as illogical from their own false 
premise that Christ is a mere man, as the Arian was from his false premise that 
His Divinity isa mere creature, and as the Nestorian was from his false premise 
that Christ was a mere man: and hence a conflict came between the two wings 
of Socinus’ Anti-Christian Sect. I quote the account of it in Murdock’s Mos- 
heim’s ecclesiastical History, vol. III., pages 240, 241 and 242, sections 22, 23 
and 24. 

“Sec. 22. The Unitarians as soon as they were separated from the society 
of the Reformed in Poland, became divided into parties; as has been already 
mentioned. The subjects of dispute among them were, the dignity of Jesus 
Christ; a Christian life and behaviour; whether infants are proper subjects of 
Christian baptism; whether the Holy Spirit is a person, or a divine attribute; and 
some other subjects. Among these parties two continued longer than the others 
and showed themselves less docile and manageable to the pacificators; namely 
the Budnaean and Favorian seéts. The former had for its founder and leader, 
Simon Budnaeus; a man of acuteness, who perceiving more clearly than others, 


093 ΠΡ’ of press: 


Fidus, and with the oath which he has offered to them, exa@tly 


whither the principles of Laelius Socinus would lead, maintained that Jesus 
Christ was not to be honored with our prayers, nor with any other kind cf wor- 
ship, and in order more easily to support this error, he declared that Christ was 
conceived, not by virtue of any divine power, but in the way that all other men 
are. These tenets indeed, harmonize very well with the first principles of the 
Socinian scheme; but to the majority they appeared intolerable and execrable. 
Budnaeus, therefore, who had many disciples in Lithuania and Russian Poland, 
was deposed from his ministerial office in 1584, and with his adherents, was ex- 
communicated. But he is said to have afterwards given up his opinion, and to 
have been restored to the communion of the Sect (a). 


‘“SEC. 23. Into nearly the same error which had proved disastrous to Bud- 
naeus, a little while after fell Francis Davides, a Hungarian, and superintendent 
of the Socinian Churches in Transylvania; for he resolutely denied that prayer 
or any other religious worship should be offered to Jesus Christ. After Blandrata 
and also Faustus Socinus himself, (who had been sent for into Transylvania for 
this very object in 1573), had in vain employed all the resources of their ingenuity 
in efforts to reclaim Davides, the prince of Transylvania, Christopher Bathor-. 
aeus, threw him into prison; where he died at an advanced age, A. D. 1579 (6). 
Yet his sad fate did not end the controversy, which he had commenced. For 
Davides \eft behind him disciples and friends, who long contended strenuously 
for the tenets of their master, and who gave no little trouble to Socimus, and to 
his followers in Poland and Lithuania. Among them the following were most 
distinguished, James Falaeologus of Chios, who was burned at Rome in 1585; 
Christian Francken who held a dispute with Socizus himself (c); John Sommer, 
rector of the School at Clausenburg; and some others. This Sect was usually 
called by the Socinian writers, the Sect of the Sem-/udaizers.’’ [All parties of 
the Socinians were not half but full Judaizers. Chrystal |. 


Sec. 24. Toward the Farnovians, the Socinians were much more indulgent; 
for they were not excommunicated nor required to abandon the opinions they 
heid, but only to conceal them, and not advance them in their sermons, 
The head of this party was Stanislaus Farnovius or Farnesius,; who was induced 
by Peter Gonestus, to prefer the Arian hypothesis before the Socinian; and who 
maintained, that before the foundation ofthe world, Christ was either begotten 
or produced out of nothing, by the supreme God. What he thought of the Holy 


(a). The Socinian Crell thought that Adam Neuser, a German, was the author of Bud- 
naeus’ opinion: see note 43, page 241, ofthe same volume of Murdock’s Mosheim. Neuser finally 
went to Constantinople, apostatized altogether from Christ, turned Mohammedan, and diedin 
that Anti-Christian error, Oct. 11, 1576. See the article on him in McClintock and Strong’s 
Cyclopaedia. 

(δ᾽. See note 30, page 236, vol. III. of Murdock’s Moshetm. 

(c). Francken left the Lutherans, turned Romanist and entered the order of the Jesuits 
Afterwards he joined the Anti-Trinitarians. As the Turkish war obliged him go to Prague, 
which was under a Romish power, to avoid trouble he turned Romanist again. The article on 
him in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia states that he ‘‘ was surnamed the weathercock 
from the instability of his religious opinions.” 

6 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 399: 


what things they heard him [Nestorius] say in the city of the 
Ephesians, when they disputed for the right Faith against him. 


Spirit is less clear; but itis known that he forbid his followers to pray to the. 
Holy Spirit.’” [This would imply that he deemed the Holy Spirit to be a crea- 
ture, as Macedonins of the fourth century also did]. ὃ * * «Αἱ last the 
party, being bereft of its leader Farnovius, who lied in the year 1615, became 
dispersed and extinct.’’ 


In a note on page 241 of the same vol. III. of Murdock’s Mosheim, on the 
expression ‘‘ Semi-/udaizers’’ above we read, 


“‘ Faustus Socinus wrote a book, expressly contra Semt-/udaizantes [Against 
the Half-Judaizers]; which is in his Opp., tom. ii., page 804. Socinus and his 
friends did not expend so much effort and care in the suppression of this faction 
because they supposed it very pernicious and hostile to the Christian religion. 
On the contrary, Socinus himself concedes, that the point in debate was of no. 
great consequence, when he declares, that it is not necessary to salvation that a 
person should pray to Christ. In his answer to Wujeck (Opp., tom. ii., page 538, 
etc.) he says: But tfany one ts possessed of so great faith, that he dare always 
godireéilly to God himself, and does not need the consolation which arises from 
the invocation of Christ his brother, tempted in all things; such a one ts not 
obliged to pray to Christ (a). According to his judgment therefore, those have 
a higher degree of faith, who neglecting Christ pray only to God himself. Why 
then so severely avenge the crime of Davides, who wished to lead all Christians 
directly to the Father? lLubienieccius also in his Historia reform. Polonicae, 
lib. ili., cap. xi., page 228, not obscurely detracts very much from the importance 
of this controversy when he writes, that in Transylvania, there were billows 
raised in a teacup (fluctus in simpulo excitatos esse). From which it appears 
manifest, that the Socinians made war upon Davzides and his adherents, perhaps 
solely for this reason, lest by tolerating his opinion, they should inflame the 
eninity of other Christians against themselves, which they already felt to be 
sufficiently great; while they deemed the opinion, in itself considered, to be one 
that might be tolerated.”’ 

Such were the errors of the Anti-Trinitarians of the 16th century, on the sub- 
ject of God the Word’s being our High Priest, and on the worship of a creature, 
His humanity. 

In comparing the velative worship of Christ’s humanity by Nestorius with, 
the relative worship of it by the Socinians, we must notice that Nestorius, as in 
note 183, pages 79-128 in this volume, worshipped it relatively to God the Son, 
whereas the Socinians, not believing in God the Son, and yet like Nesiorius, 
making Christ a mere man, worshipped him relatively to God the Father. See 
Nestorius’ relative worship set forth on pages 81 to 90 of note 183, The Socin- 


(a). Latinas givenon page 242, vol. III. of Murdock’s Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist.; Quod si quis 
tanta est fide praeditus, ut ad Deum ipsum perpetuo recta accedere andeat, nec consolatione, 
quae ex Christi fratris sui per omnia tentati invocatione, indigeat, hic non opus habet, ut. 
Christum invocet. 


400 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, said: Iam indeed pained for my 


ian sort is set forth in the Racovian Catechism. I translate passages relating to 
it which I find on page 65 of Winer’s Confessions of Christendom. I quote; 
the pages refer to those of the Racovian Catechism: After teaching that Christ 
is a mere man, and that all the power he has is given him by the Father, he 
adds, 


Page 164. ‘‘Fovasmuch as Jesus himself has divine power over us, we are also 
bound in that sense to acknowledge himas God * * * and to give him di- 
vine honor.”’ 


Page 237. ‘‘ The divine honor due to Christ consists in this, that as we are 
bound to approach him with divine adoration, so in all our necessities, we can 
implore his aid. But we adore him on account of his sublime and divine power.” 


Page 245. ‘‘ That honor and worship ts given to Christ, that the difference 
between Christ and God may be very great. For we adore and worship God as 
the first cause of our salvation, Christ as the second cause.’? The Latin is found 
in Winer as above. I quote it: (The Racovian Catechism) p. 164: Primo prae- 
cepto Jes. addidit id, quod ipsum Jesum pro eo, qui in nos potestatem habeat 
divinam istoque sensu pro deo agnoscere * * * ac divinum ei honorem ex- 
hibere tenemur. 

7b. qu. 237. (Honor divinus Christo debitus consistit) in eo, quod, quemad- 
modum adoratione divina eum prosequi tenemur, ita in omnibus necessitatibus 
nostris ejus opem implorare possumus. Adoramus vero eum propter ipsius sub- 
limem et divinam ejus potestatem. 


76. qu. 245: (Is honor et cultus Christo tribuitur, ut inter Christum et Deum 
discrimen) permagnum sit. Nam adoramus et colimus Deum tanquam causam 
primam salutis nostrae, Christum tanquam secundam. 

All that applying the name of God to a creature and all that worship of a 
creature are anathematized by St. Cyril in his Anathema VIII. and its do¢trine 
is reinforced by Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod. 


Winer there adds, ‘‘A contention arose between Socinus and others, especi- 
ally the Siebenburg Unitarians, as to the divine honor to be paid to Christ. On 
this consult the tractates of Socinus in the B7zb/. Frat. Polon. 11. 7o9sqq. The 
Summa theol. Unit. agrees generally with the views of Socinus.”’ 


Modern Anti-Trinitarianism in England and in America seems at last to have 
ended largely in denying all worship to Christ’s humanity, and so has reached 
the opinion of Stancaro and of Christian David. That is asserted as to England 
by Hase (see the reference on page 66 of Winer’s Confessions of Christendom). 
As to America, Lamson, a Unitarian minister, in his History of the Unitarian 
Congregationalists, pages 595, 596, of Religious Denominations in the United 
States, (Desilver, Phila., 1871), writes, ‘‘ Unitarians of the present day, as far 
as we know, do not think tt lawful directly to address Christ in prayer.” Per- 
haps Lamson means his words to apply to Anti-Trinitarians in every land. 
Shippen, another Anti-Trinitarian minister, and ‘‘ Secretary of the American 
Unitarian Association, Boston, Mass.,” in his article Uniturianism in McClin- 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 401 
friend. Nevertheless I honor (711) piety before any friendship. 


tock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia shows that the American form of that heresy has 
become a sort of ecclesiastical go as you please, of the I'll believe as 7 blamed 
please, and do as I blamed please kind, and tf the Bible and Church differ from 
me, so much the worse for the Bible and the Church. It actually sits down 
severely on its hybrid, highly variegated, and ever mutually squabbling heretical 
ancestry. For he says plainly in that articleon page 646, left hand column, vol. 
X. id. under the head of Doétrinal Views. ‘‘In seeking the present form of 
Unitarian faith, it is needless to recount the speculations of earlier times. The 
tenets of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata and Arius, also of Servetus and the 
Socini, in their special forms sharing the crudities of contemporaneous thought, 
have largely passed away. They are not to be quoted as authority. They are 
simply in the line of historical progress, agreeing only in the single fundamen- 
tal thought that God is one, and Jesus Christ ὦ created and subordinate deing. 
Unitarianism is chara¢teristically not a fixed dogmatic statement.’’ We should 
say not after what we know of its history past and present. These are important 
admissions. The Socinian leaders left Christ the Rock of Ages, they denied the 
Incarnation and God the Word, and, like the Nestorians, they made a mere crea- 
ture, the mere humanity of Christ, the Mediator, and High Priest, and like them 
fell into the common sequence of those errors, the worship of a mere creature, 
and so became creature-worshippers, that is, Pagans so far as that great funda- 
mental sin of the heathen is concerned. But in later times, thesharper of them 
seeing that they had landed in that error, repudiated it and much of the Bible 
and all the authority of the Six Councils of the Universal Church, and so are 
not Christians, as Athanasius teaches that the Arians were not Christians, but 
rather heathen or Jews. They refuse to believe in the Gospel and are lost (Mark 
xvi., 16 and Rev. xxi, 8, etc.) 

Smith’s Gieseler’s Church History, vol. IV. pages 354-371 has important 
matter on the struggle between Socinus’ party, the Adorers, as they were termed, 
of Christ’s humanity, and the Stanzcarists, who were termed in contradistinction 
the Non-Adorers. On page 362, he states, ‘‘ the doctrine of Francis Stancaro.”’ 
(so he spells the name) was that ‘‘ Christ1s Mediator only in his human nature.” 
The Latin of the note there given shows that to have been his view. It is worth 
noting how in the corrupt and creature-worshipping state of the Roman Com- 
munion some of its leading men fell intoan error similartoit so far. For instance 
Dr. Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, vol. I. page 273, states that ‘‘ Stancaro 
* * * asserted, against Osiander and zz agreement with Peter the Lombard that 
Christ was our Mediator and Redeemer according to his human natureonly.’’ In 
a note on the same page Schaff adds, ‘‘Petrus Lombardus says: Christus mediator 
dicitur secundum humanttatem, non secundum divinitatem, that is, in plain 
English ‘Christ 15 called Mediator with reference to His humanity not with ref- 
erence to His divinity,’ a flat heresy anathematized by St. Cyril’s Anathema 
X. above, which, being approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, has Univer- 
sal Authority and is unassailable by Peter Lombard or any other creature-invok- 
ing heretic. 


402 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Therefore I hold it necessary, even though it be with much sadness,, 


Among Lutheran documents Zhe Saxon Visitation Articles of A. D. 1592 
are, alas! Nestorian in ascribing both the name of God and His ‘‘dzvine maj- 
esty, honor, power and glory’? toacreature. I quote from them as I find them 
in Schaff’s translation on page 183, Volume III. of his Cveeds of Christendom, 
except that I correct a word or so. The place to which I refer is as follows: 


“Article II. Of the Person of Christ. 

I. In Christ there are two distinct natures, the divine and the human. 
These remain eternally unmixed and inseparable (or undivided). 

II. These two natures are personally so united that there is but one Christ 
and one Person. 

III. On account of this personal union it is rightly said, and in fact and 
truth it really is, that God is man and man 1s God; that Mary brought forth the 
Son of God, and that God redeemed us by His own proper blood. 


IV. By this personal union, and the exaltation which followed it, Christ, 
according to the flesh, is placed at the right hand of God, and has received all 
power in heaven and in earth, and is made partaker of all the divine maesty, 
honor, power and glory.’ 

The heretical expressions are underscored by me. Cyril and the Third 
Council in their Eighth Anathema curse the assertion that ‘‘ an 15 God,’ as 
does, in effect, Anathema IX. of the Fifth World-Council also; as both do the 
blasphemous averment that a mere creature, ‘‘ Christ, according to the flesh * 
* * has received all power in heaven and in earth, and 15 made partaker of all 
the divine majesty, honor, power and glory.’’ This is the very heresy of relative 
worship of Christ’s humanity, which St. Cyril condemns above in note 156, 
pages 61-69, and in note 183, pages 79-128. Wecan see that Aegidius Hunnius 
and the others who composed the above article did not understand Cyril’s doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation, which, approved by the Third Council, 
ascribes, economically only, all the human things of the man put on by God the 
Word, such as suffering and death, to God the Word; but strongly and definitely 
anathematizes all who are guilty of the Nestorian sin of ascribing any of the 
divine things of God the Word, such as His name, bowing, prayer, or any other 
act of religious worship, or any other part of His ‘‘ divine majesty, honor, power, 
and glory’’ to that mere creature, for that, as St. Cyril often teaches, is Man- 
Worship, that is, Creature-Worship. 


We see from the above language of the Saxon Visitation Articles that their 
authors evidently agreed with Nestorius that the elevation and worship men- 
tioned in Philippians ii., 5-12, is the elevation and worship of Christ’s humanity; 
against the doctrine of St. Cyril, approved by the Third Council of the whole 
Church, that it is the elevation of God the Word to the place where He was be- 
fore and His worship as there, Cyril’s interpretation of the place is borne out 
by the words ‘‘ who being in the form of God,’’ which can refer to God the Word 
only, for Christ’s humanity was never inside God the Father’s form. See on 
Philip ii., 5-12, in the Index toScripture in this volume and in that in voluzme I. of 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 403 


to show forth the truth on the matters regarding which I am interro- 


Nicaea in this Set, and that in ‘‘S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
Nestorius,’’ Oxford translation, and in the Indexes to Scripture in the volumes 
of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of St. Cyril, etc., and under Scripturarum 
in vol. VI. id., andin Part I. of vol. VII. id. After reading such heresy it is plea- 
sant to read on page 181 of the same volume of Schaff that ‘“‘The Four Articles of 
Visitation [of which the above is one] prepared by Aegidius Hunnius and other 
Lutheran divines against Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1592, never 
acquired general authority, and have now ceased to be binding even in Saxony.”’ 
See more against them in Schaff there. 


The Formula of Concord in its Article VII. teaches some Anti-Cyrillian and 
Anti-Third-Council doctrine on the Eucharist, and in its Article VIII. sets forth 
the heresy that Christ’s humanity may be called God (page 150, se¢tion vi., vol. 
III. of Schaff’s Crveeds of Christendom), uses the wrong language that it ‘‘was as- 
sumed into God,”’ (page 151, id. section x.) in accordance with the spurious non- 
Ecumenical so-called Athanasian Creed (section 35, page 69, vol. 11. in Schaff, 
id.) which, if rigidly taken, would mean Monophysitism: and on page 152, vol. 
III. id., the /ormula aétually goes so far as to blaspheme by ascribing in effect 
God the Word’s infinite attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipres- 
ence to His mere humanity; on page 153, id., it egregiously and ignorantly 
blunders and falsifies by asserting that ‘‘Nestorius * * * denieda truecom- 
munication of the zdiomata or attributes of both natures in Christ, and in this 
way separated the Person of Christ, which thing Dr. Luther has perspicuously 
set forth in his book on the Councils.”’ 


If Luther said that, he blundered. For, 1, Nestorius separated the two 
Natures in Christ in that he denied the Incarnation of the Eternal Substance of 
God the Word in His humanity. 

2. The fault as regards Communication of Properties for which Nestorius. 
was condemned was his asserting that the name of God, and. the worship of God 
the Word by bowing, prayer, etc., may be given to His humanity: whereas the 
doctrine of Cyril and of Ephesus is that that is M/an-Worship, that is, Creature 
worship, that is, Paganism. See notes 156, 183 and 582 in this work above, and 
Cyril’s Anathema VIII. approved by the whole Church at Ephesus. On 
page 155, section vi., the Formula of Concord blames those who censure 
the heretical assertion that ‘‘man 15. God,’ and (page 155, section vii.,) 
the heretical doctrine of Communication of FProperlies, and the blas- 
phemy that Christ's humanity ‘‘has become omnipotent,’ and on pages 156, 

157 and 158, it condemns those who deny the Lutheran heresy of the Ubiquity of 
Christ’s humanity and so it condemns the do¢trine of the Church of England in 
the Declaration at the end of its Communion Office. The same Formula of 
Concord, on pages 156 and 157, condemns those who deny the heresy that Christ’s 
humanity is ‘‘capable of OMNIPOTENCE AND OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE DIVINE 
NATURE!’’ And on pages 157 and 158, contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s re- 
peated explanation of Philippians 11., 5-12, it agrees with Nestorius in ascribing 
the exaltation of Christ and His worship there to His humanity, a mere creature; 


404 Act I. of Ephesus. 


gated. [Though] I do not think that there is need of our testimony, 


o_o 


and whereas St. Cyril’s teaching refers the exaltation and worship to God the 
Word, and shows that His ascension there means His going up to where He was 
before His humiliation the Formula of Concord calls that doctrine ‘‘a horrible 
and blasphemous interpretation,” id., page 158. Cyril’s explanation of that 
passage is clearly set forth on pages 198, 199, 271, 272 and 273, of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. On page 308-311, Cyril 
shows that the Nestorian idea of the exaltation of a mere man in that passage 
results in mere Mai-Worship, and in making Christ’s mere humanity “‘a new 
and late-appearing god,” (id., pages 308, 309); So on pages 73 and 74 Cyril says 
of Nestorius’ interpretation of Philippians ii., 5-12, quoted by Cyril on page 72, 
id., “He hath engodded amanlikeus ὃ * * Howtshenot openly saying that 
we worship him who is not by nature God?” etc. Onpage 273, he asks, with ref- 
erence to the Nestorian idea that the exaltation and worship there refers to 
Christ’s humanity; 


‘Bor how will that be true, ere shall be in thee no new god [Psalm 1xxx., 
9, Septuagint; our Psalm 1xxxi., 9], if according to them a man is made god by 
connection with the Word, and is declared co-enthroned, and sharer of the 
Father's Dignity?” Of course Cyril does not deny that God the Word is inside 
His Humanity: but he does deny the Nestorian heresy that that mere creature 
ean share either the name of God or His Worship. Both Cyril and Nestorius 
understood Philippians ii., 5-12 to teach the worship of Christ, but differed in 
that Cyril limited it there to God the Word, whereas Nestorius made it a relative 
worship of his humanity. Nestorius’ and Cyril’s language on that matter is 
given in notes 156, 183 and 582 above. See especially on that passage pages 8I- | 
gl, εἴς., and120. On page 99-101 Athanasius agrees with Cyril on it. That per- 
version of that piace to Man-Worship was one of the causes of Nestorius’ deposi- 
tion: see id., pages 109-112. Eutherius of Tyana or Theodoret (both of them 
Nestorians), evidently referring to that part of Philippians, maintains Nestorius’ 
view, and denounces Cyril for denying that the passage means the exaltation and 
worship of Christ’s humanity: see that creature worshipper’s language on pages 
125, 126 above in the note. 


The particular acts of worship specified as given by Nestorius or his parti- 
sans to Christ’s humanity are as follows: 


1. Bowing; see in this volume pages 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 109 (Greek), 118, 
20, 121 


2. Bending the knee to that mere man as in heaven; id., pages 84, 88. 


3. Calling him God, and giving him appellations which are used by 
Nestorius in a certain place or places to mean God; id., pages 84, 88, 118. 


4. Ascribing to that mere creature “EQUALITY OF RANK”? with God; id., 
page 84; and asserting, as did a prominent Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana, or 
‘Theodoret, that that mere creature is ‘‘ove with”? God the Word ‘‘ 22 the indt- 
visible sharing of the glory [and] of the dignity which ts above all expression,” 
that is, of course, the glory and dignity of God the Word; id., pages 125, 126. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 405 


a ee pe 


for his mind has been made clear. by his Letter to thy God-fearing- 


ooo 


Such worship of Christ’s humanity was relative, pages 89, 85, 86, 87, III. 


By such adts Cyril states that Nestorius made that man, a mere creature, a 
god; id., pages 83, 84, 88, 89-98, and therefore he calls him ‘‘a worshipper of a 
Man,’ (ἀνθρωπολάτρης), and speaks of his sin as Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρείας), 
id., pages 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92-98, 109, IIo. 

As Cyril, like Athanasius, makes all acts of religious service, such as bow- 
ing, prayer, etc., to be prerogative to God, he therefore makes the giving of them 
to a creature a making that creature to be a god; id., pages 83, 84, 85, 86-98, and 
page 103. 

Cyril brands the Nestorian relative worship of Christ’s humanity as an 
insult to God; pages 85, 86, 87. It is anathematized by the whole Church in 
Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council; id., page 111. 


On page 127 above, note, either Nestorius of Tyana, the irreconcilable Nes- 
torian, or Theodoret, his companion in error, contends, (against the doctrine of 
St. Cyril and of Ephesus), that God the Word can not be our Intercessor, but 
that His humanity alone must be. 


On page 122 above, note, Eutherius of Tyana denounces Cyril’s do¢trine 
“that God the Word has been made our Apostle and High Priest’? as ‘‘ abom- 
znable.”’ 

The Augsburg Confession in its Part 1, Article XXI., On the Worship of 
Saints, nobly and Cyrillianly says, ‘‘The Scripture teacheth not to invocate 
saints, or to ask help of saints, because it propoundeth unto us ONE CHRIST, THE 
MEDIATOR, PROPITIATION, HIGH PRIEST, AND INTERCESSOR. This Christ is 
to be invocated, and He hath promised that He will hear our prayers, and 
liketh this worship especially, to wit, that he be invocated in all afflictions. 
‘Tf any man sin, we have an Advocate with God, Jesus Christ the righteous,’ 
(I. John ii., 1), page 26, Vol III. of Schaff's Confesszons of Christendom. 


The Second Part has an excellent ‘‘ Chapter V., On the Adoration, Wor- 
ship and Invocation of God through the Only Mediator, Jesus Christ.’’ Among 
_ other things it applies to the glory of Christ as the Sole Mediator God’s utter- 
ance regarding Himself in Isaiah xlii., 8, My glory wil I not give to another. 


Remarkable is the blasphemy of the small sect of the Schwenkfelders, for it 
reminds us of the Apollinarian and Monophysite heresies. According to the 
description of their errors in the Formula of Concord, Article XTI., they con- 
demn ‘‘all those who affirm Christ, according to the flesh, to be a creature.” 

And they assert ‘‘ That the flesh of Christ through its exaltation has in such 
wise received all the divine attributes, that Christ, as He is man, is altogether 
like to the Father and to the Word [Logos] in power, might, majesty, in all 
things, in grade and state of essence, so that henceforth there is one essence of 
both natures in Christ, and the same attributes, the same will, and the same 
glory; and that the flesh of Christ pertains to the essence of the Blessed Trinity!” 


Here is blasphemy enough, surely! Had the do¢trines of St. Cyril approved 
at Ephesus and the teachings of the rest of the VI. World-Councils been known 
Ν 


406 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ness (712). For there (713) he forbade certain things to be said 


to Schwenkfeld he might have been saved from such sad blasphemies which end 
in the worship of a creature as God after the Apollinarian and Monophysite 
error. 


One thing more should I mention here, the disgraceful and appalling spread 
of the sin of invoking saints and so-called saints in the Anglican Communion. 
It constitutes such treason to its own Article XXII., and to its own Homilies 
above quoted, and to St. Cyril’s Anathemas VIII. and X., as to call for theinstant 
deposition of every cleric guilty of it, and the instant excommunication of every 
laic guilty of it. Specimens of it may be found in Newman’s Tract XC., on /7- 
vocation of Saints, under the Twenty-Second Article, where he is crafty, decep- 
tive, traitorous, and scoundrelly, for that rascal was receiving the pay of the 
Church of England for the time he spent in betraying her. He was, before God 
and man, simply a dishonorable scamp. He has gone to the bar of God to meet 
the accusations of souls whom he led into idolatry and ruined forever. Like 
Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, he “‘made Israel to sin”? (I. Kings., xiv., 16, etc.), 
and will stand at the last with him, with Tarasius of the horrible God-cursed 
death, and all the other corrupters of God’s people. Keble, Pusey and John 
Mason Neale were also against the above Anathemas of St. Cyril and of Ephesus. 
See under their names in the General Index to Nicaea in this Set. One of the 
most dangerous scoundrels who opposed those priceless utterances and the 
Formularies of his own National Church was John Henry Blunt. See as speci- 
mens of his treason to Christ’s prerogative of being the Sole Intercessor in 
heaven, in his Diétionary of Doéirinal and Historical Theology, the article on 
Lnvocation of Saints and that on Mariolairy. Besides, in his article Martyrs 
there, he craftily sides with Rome against his own Church; and admits the man- 
made Romish distin@tions between λατρεία, δουλεία, etc., made by Rome and 
others to excuse their paganism, contrary to the use of those terms in the New 
Testament and in the Six Synods. So under /mage-Worship he opposes the 
Formularies of his own Church and the voice of the primitive Church, and per- 
verts facts and conveys false views here and there. Surely the Anglican Bishops. 
should, after all primitive example, anathematize all such traitors and creature- 
worshippers, and forbid their works to be read among their clergy and people, 
for they have already had a most evil and traitorous effect, and undo the very 
work and oppose the very arguments of Cyril, and of the great Anglican Theo- 
logians, like Bishop Bull for instance, against such sins, and lure souls to crea- 
ture-worship and to perdition. 


St. Cyril explains his Anathema X. in the text of pages 255-268 above in the 
Longer Epistle. 


And here we leave this note on Anathema X. of Cyril, though much more 
might be said were there room. Note 689, page 351. See Unzon, in Gen. Index. 


Note 690, page 352. Nestorius, as Cyril shows, denied that the Substance 
of God the Word dwelt in the Man united to Him, and admitted only a divine 
indwelling of God the Word in that Man in the same sense as there was a divine 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 407 


concerning God the Word, that is, the Sole-Born [out of the Father], 


indwelling of God the Word in the prophets, as Peter testifies in effect, when he 
writes, ‘ Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently 
who prophesied of the grace which should come unto you; searching what, or 
what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when 
it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did min- 
ister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the 
Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,’’ (I. Peter i., το, 
II, 12). The Spirit of Christ thus operative in the prophets long before the Man 
put on had any existence, was of course the Holy Spirit. 


Such was Nestorius’ conception and idea of the Word’s dwelling in that 
Man. That is to say, he admitted that the Word indwelt that Man by His 
Spirit, not by His divine Substance. 


(691), page 353. Cyril refers to what is said on the Eucharist not only 
in this Anathema XI. but in this Epistle above. See there and note 606 on it. 


(692), page 354. Under note 606, pages 240-313 above, I have shown at 
length St. Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings on the Eucharist. His writings put 
forth before the Third Synod took action against Nestorius and serving to guide 
its action on the Lord’s Supper as well as on the Incarnation, and on Man-Wor- 
ship show, I, that he was free from the error of Consubstantiation; and 


2. From that of Transubstantiation; and 


3. From the error of the reception in the Eucharist of the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity; and 

4. From the error of what he terms Cannibalism (av§pwrogayia), that is, the 
eating of Christ’s real flesh and the drinking of His real blood there; and 


5. From the idolatry of worshipping Christ’s Divinity or humanity there; 
and 


6. From the error of worshipping Christ’s separate humanity any where, 
for he condemns the sin of bowing to Christ’s separate humanity there, a heresy 
of the Nestorians, as J/an- Worship, that is, Creature- Worship. 


See on that whole topic note 606 above, and when it is published, the D7ssert- 
ation on the Eucharist in this Set. 


It should be added, 7, that Anathema XI. deals mainly with the truth that 
the Word quickens us in the Eucharist by His Life-giving Spirit, and by sending 
the energy of His body which is at the right hand of the Father, ‘‘zw/o the 
things which lie before us,’’ that is, ‘‘the leavened bread and the wine,” as Cyril 
explains above in note 606, page 250 tothe end of the note: where also he teaches 
in accordance with Anathema XI. that to receive mere human flesh and blood 
would not spiritually quicken any one, and that to eat flesh and to drink blood 
is cannibalism and wickedness. 


(693), page 354. For the sake of the comparison I here add 
The Nestorian Counter Anathema XT: 


408 Act I. of Ephesus. 
where he makes the human things (714) an insult to Him, and here 


“If any one says that the flesh united to the Word of God is quickening by 
any possibility of its own nature, when the Lord Himself proclaims, /¢ ἐς the 
Spirit that guickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing [John vi., 63], let him be 
anathema. It is proclaimed by the Lord that God is a Spirit [ John iv., 24]. 
If any one therefore says that God the Word was made flesh as regards the Sub- 
stance [of His Divinity] in a fleshly sense, and holds specifically to that mode 
of the Union [of the Two Natures], especially when the Lord Christ after His 
resurrection said to His disciples, handle [Me] and see; for a spirit hath not 
jiesh and bones, as ye see me have [Luke xxiv., 39] let him be anathema.” 


This is intended as a reply to St. Cyril’s famous Eucharistic Anathema XI., 
and, as we see above in note 606, pages 260-276, to his charge that the Nestorian 
error of a real presence of the human flesh and blood of Christ on the holy 
table, and of their oral manducation there, results in cannibalism (’Av@pwrogayia). 
It denies that result of the Nestorian view, as Nestorius himself denies it, as 
quoted in section 4, Book IV. of St. Cyril’s Five Book Contradiétion of the 
Blasphemties of Nestorius, (page 142 of the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of 
Alexandria On the Incarnation Against Nestorius). Cyril, however, does not 
accept that denial, but shows that the result of the Nestorian premises on the 
Eucharist and of their denial of the Incarnation which is connected with them 
is logically cannibalism; in other words, that a man is logically responsible for 
the conclusions which follow necessarily from his own premises, a rebuke 
which, by the way, applies to every Consubstantiationist and to every Transub- 
stantiationist who admits that he eats the real human flesh of Christ and drinks 
His real human blood in the Lord’s Supper, and then with less than the logic of 
a ten year old boy, denies the necessary conclusion that heis a cannibal. Oh! 
how many of the drivellers who follow the new-fangled heresy of the heresiarch 
Keble of the wretched death one sees who drule in denying the cannibalism 
which is the logical outcome of their heresy! In the place quoted by Cyril, 
Nestorius, speaking of Christ’s language in John vi., and of the Jews being scan- 
dalized at it, remarks, 


‘‘And I will speak of the words of the scandal. The Lord Anointed [Χριστός 
conversed with them regarding His own flesh. Uy/ess, saith He, ye eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man and drink H1s blood ye have no life in yourselves [John vi., 
53]. The hearers endured not the loftiness of the things said. Owing to their 
ignorance they supposed that He was bringing in Cannibalism:’’ Greek, as on 
page 194 of vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s Cyril, Οὐκ ἤνεγκαν τὸ τῶν λεγομένων ὑψηλὸν οἱ 
ἀκούσαντες, ἐνόμιζον ὑπὸ ἀμαθίας ἀνθρωποφαγίαν εἰσάγειν. 


But St. Cyril was too sharp a logician and too faithful a watchman against 
fundamental error to permit Nestorius to shirk by such pretexts the Canniba] 
View: For at once he replies, ‘‘ dud how ts the thing not plain cannibalism, and 
in what way 15 the Mystery yet lofty,’ etc.; Εἶτα πῶς τὸ χρῆμά ἐστιν οὐκ ἐναργὴς 
ἀνθρωποφαγία; Τίνα δὲ τρόπον ὑψηλὸν ἔτι TO μυστήριον, etc. 


St. Cyril explains his Anathema XI. in his Longer Epistle, pages 231-241. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 409) 


(715) he said the same things. He said that we must not assert 


(694), page 356. I. Peter iv., 1. Cyril explains in this Epistle and else- 
where often that he does not mean that God the Word Himself in His own 
eternal Divinity suffered, was crucified, and tasted death; but only that He did 
80, as even in this Twelfth Anathema he says, ‘‘z2 flesh,’’ that is, that the flesh 
which God the Word put on suffered these human things, for God the Word is 
impassible and immortal, as Cyril says again and again. But Cyril attributes all 
those human things to God the Word that he may emphasize the infinite super- 
iority of His Divinity to His mere created Humanity, and teach us to pray to God 
the Word and not to the Man put on; for if we do we are creature-servers. And 
in this sense was this Anathema and the whole Twelve and all this Epistle 
approved and adopted by the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Three Ecumen- 
ical Synods which followed it. 


Athanasius was Cyril’s teacher on this doctrine, as any one can readily see 
by examining his works. 


Cyril explains this doctrine of Economic Appropriation and in immediate 
conne¢tion with it condemns the worship of Christ’s humanity in his Shorter 
Epistle, pages 60-88, and especially pages 74-88. So he does in the above Longer 
Epistle, pages 214-230, especially pages 220-230, and 247-255. See also page 366, 
note, and page 115, note, under ‘‘(c).’”? And see his works, passim. See espec- 
ially also note 585, pages 227 and 228 above. 


I add here The Nestorian Counter Anathema XII: 


“ΤΕ any one, confessing the sufferings of the flesh, but making no distinc- 
tion between the dignity of the Natures, ascribes those sufferings to the Word of 
God and at the same time to the flesh which He was made [ John i., 14], let him 
be anathema.”’ 

This is aimed against St. Cyril‘s doctrine of the Economic Appropriation 
(Greek, οἰκείωσιν οἰκονομικὴν), of the sufferings of Christ’s humanity to His Divinity 
to guard against worshipping a Man, as St. Athanasius, followed by St. Cyril, 
tells us. See in proof Passage 13 of St. Athanasius on pages 237-240 in Volume 
I. of Nicaea in this Set; and under Economic Appropriation in the General In- 
dex in that volume and in the General Index inthis. But Cyril, while admit- 
ting and teaching that God can not suffer, nevertheless Economically ascribes the 
sufferings of his humanity to His Divinity for the reason just stated. 


The expression Economic Appropriation is used in St. Cyril’s Epistle to 
John of Antioch, which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council. For 
it reads, 

‘And, moreover, we all confess that the Word of God is not liable to suffer- 
ing, even though He Himself in all-wisely managing the mystery [of Redemp- 
tion] is seen to ascribe to Himself the sufferings which happened to His own 
flesh. And for that very reason the all-wise Peter saith, Christ then hath suffered 
Jor us in the flesh [1. Peter iv., 1], and not in the Nature of the ineffable Divin- 
ity. For in order that He Himself may be believed to be the Saviour of all He 
refers the sufferings of His own flesh to Himself by Economic Appropriation. A 


410 ὧν Ephesus. 


neurishing by milk in regard to God, NOR THE BIRTH OUT OF A 


thing implying that dod¢trine is what was predicted through the prophetic utter- 
ance, as from Himself, J gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows, and 
7 turned notaway my face from [the] spittings of shame [Isaiah 1., 6]. I quote 
part of the Greek: ᾿Απαθῆ δὲ πρὸς τούτῳ τὸν Tov Θεοῦ Λόγον ὑπάρχειν ὁμολογοῦμεν 
ἅπαντες, κἄν εἰ πανσόφως Αὐτὸς οἱκονομῶν τὸ μυστήριον, “Εαυτῷ προσνέμων ὁρῷτο τὰ τῇ ἰδίᾳ 
σαρκὶ συμβεβηκότα πάθη. Ταύτῃ τοι καὶ ὁ πάνσοφος ἹΠέτρος, ““Χριστοῦ οὗν, φησὶ, παθόντος 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σαρκὶ,᾽" καὶ οὐχὶ τῇ φύσει τῆς ἀῤῥήτου θεότητος. “Iva γὰρ Αὐτὸς ὁ τῶν ὅλων 
Σωτῆρ εἷναι πιστεύηται, κατ᾽ οἰκείωσιν οἰκονομικὴν εἰς ‘Eavrov, ὡς ἔφην, τὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς 


ἀναφέρει πάθη, (Pusey’s Three Epistles of Cyril, page 50.) 


It will be noticed that Cyril takes Isaiah 1., 6, to bean instance of Economic 
Appropriation to God the Word of the sufferings of His humanity. 


So in the longer Epistle above, page 225, text, Cyril teaches that God the 
Word “ was in the crucified body APPROPRIATING TO HIMSELF ¢he sufferings 
of His own flesh,’ Greek, ὁμολογοῦμεν δὲ, ὅτε Αὐτὸς ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς Tide 
καὶ Θεὸς Μονογενὴς καίτοι κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν ὑπάρχων ἀπαθὴς, σαρκὶ πέπονθεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, κατὰ 
τὰς Τραφάς" καὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ σταυρωθέντι σώματι τὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς ἀπαθῶς οἰκειούμενος πάθη: 
P. E. Pusey’s Three Epistles of Cyril, page 24. Similarly Cyril writes in the 
same Epistle, page 214 above, and in his Shorter Epistle, pages 60 to 85, and es- 
pecially pages 74-79 above. So we see that the doctrine of Economic Appropri- 
ation having been incorporated into every one of Cyril’s Three Ecumenically 
approved Epistles is therefore most plainly the doctrine of the Universal Church 
to guard against the Nestorian Man Worship as Cyril teaches. The context in- 
deed in every Epistle denounces that Man-Worship. See also Passage 13 of St. 
Athanasius, pages 237-240 of volume I. of /Vicaea in this Set. 


St. Cyril teaches that Christ’s Divinity did not suffer, but he Economically 
attributes suffering to It; pages 158, 159, of P. E. Pusey’s translation of S. Cyril 
of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius; pages 166, 171, 172, 173, 
174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 182, 184, 231-236. 


Cyril of Alexandria has matter bearing on his Anathema XII. in his Thesau. 
rus, Assertio XX. column 327 and after in tome 75 of Migne’s fatrologia 
Graeca,; and in his Book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Dialogue VT, 
col. 1002 and after in the same tome; and in his Scholia on the Inman of the 
Sole Born, chapter xxxv., col. 1408 and after in the same tome. See also under 
Natura in the Index to the same tome. 


For a reference to Nestorius’ denial of the doctrine of Economic Appropria- 
tion, see page 115 above under C. 


I here add a few more testimonies out of many of ancient writers to the doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation. 


In section 1 of Ignatius’ Hpzstle to the Ephesians, he speaks of Christians as 
‘‘ yecalled to life by God’s blood,” (ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ). 


Soin his Epistle to the Romans, chapter vi., referring to his desire to die a 
martyr for Christ he says: 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 411 


VIRGIN (716). And so he often said here that we must not say that 


‘‘ Permit me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God.’’ ([Ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι 
«μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους TOV Θεοῦ pov), ; 


These passages are, however, from the longer recension of those two Epis- 
tles. The Ignatius here meant was John of Antioch’s predecessor in that see. 
He died a martyr for Christin A. Ὁ. 1o7or116. The latter passage is found in 
the shorter recension of Ignatius’ Epistles in the following form: ‘‘ Permit me 
to be an imitator of the passion of Christ my God.’ See it in the Ante Nicene 
‘Christian Library. 

Hefele, in his Index, page 453 of the fourth edition of his Patrum Apostolt- 
corum Opera (Tubingae, A. D. 1855), refers to the passages above as examples 
of the Communicatio Idiomatum, ‘Communication of Properties,’”’ but wrongly. 
Neither Irenczeus nor any other Orthodox man of the earliest centuries was 
guilty of the error of attributing any of the properties of God the Word toa 
mere creature. That is Nestorian heresy condemned by the Third Ecumenical 
Council. But the above instances are cases of the Economic Appropriation of the 
things of the Man put on to God the Word, a dogma approved in that Synod. 


St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his work on the XII. Chapters Against the 
Orientals, under Anathema XII., teaches, as we have just seen, that the reason 
of the Economic Appropriation was to keep men from worshipping a creature. 
‘This had been a tradition in the church from the beginning. 


Athanasius in his Book on the Holy Trinity as quoted by Cyrilon his Chapter 
XT. against the Orientals, confesses in effect the Two Natures and the doctrine 
of Economic Appropriation. See the placeon page 363, vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey’s 
edition of the Greek of Cyril. 


The following I do not rely on as genuine, but give it for whatever it may 
be worth. 


A sermon ascribed to Proclus, and alleged by Neale to have been preached 
on the day of the Annunciation, March 25, A. D. 429, certainly teaches the doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation. For it ascribes to God the Word birth of the 
Virgin and death. See it quoted on pages 239, 240 vol. I. of Neale’s Alexandria. 
I quote it as given by Neale there: 


‘“God was born of awoman. If God had not been born, He could not have 
died. We speak not of a deified man: we confess an incarnate God.”” Then he 
confesses however the Two Natures in Him. And with reference to the Nes- 
torian worship of the mere man whom God the Word had put on, Proclus, hold- 
ing the view of St. Cyril of Alexandria against it, says in the same discourse: 


“If Christ be one, and the Word amother, we have no longer a Trinity but 
a Quaternity.”? For the Nestorians did worship Four, God the Father, God the 
Word, God the Holy Ghost and a creature, that is, the mere Man put on by God 
the Word, the two last as separate with but one worship, and so were, as St. 
Cyril writes again and again, no longer 7rinttarians, but Quaternitarians, thatis, 
to use another synonym for the same error, 7etradites, and hence were as the 


412 Act I. of Ephesus. 


God is two months old or three months old (717). And not only did 


ancients called them Man-Servers: whereas the Orthodox Cyril worshipped only 
God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Ghost, though the Word was 
with or within His flesh, according to his Anathema VIII., thus obeying Christ’s 
law in Matt. iv., 10, ‘‘ Zhou shalt bow to the Lord Thy God, and Him only shalt 
thou serve.”’ 


Neale adds on page 242, ‘‘ There can be no doubt that this Sermon was not 
without its effect: and Nestorius resolved on re-stating at greater length what he 
had then briefly touched. The three statements of Proclus, that S. Mary is en- 
titled to the name of Mother of God’’ [No! that is a blunder of Neale’s. He 
should have said as Proclus says ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God.’’|. ‘* That God was 
made a High Priest,’? [The Tenth of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Twelve Anathemas. 
curses any man who does not believe that God the Word is our High Priest ],— 
“(ἢ δὲ God suffered and died,—afforded Nestorius materials for three elaborate 
sermons. In the first he endeavors to explain how the term ‘Mother of God’”’ 
[No! Bringer Forth of God. Chrystal. ‘‘may be used in an inoffensive sense, 
while he alleges thatits employment may lead the way to heresy and blasphemy. 
‘I have learnt,’ he concludes, ‘from Scripture that God passed through the 
Virgin Mother of Christ; that God was born of her, 7 have never learnt.’’’ ‘That. 
is a plain denial of the Incarnation. 


‘‘The next sermon of Nestorius founded on the text ‘consider the Apostle 
and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,’ vehemently attacked the state- 
ment of Proclus, that God was madea High Priest. It contains little more at- 
tempt at argument than the stringing together of several passages which the 
author thought favorable to his views. * * * 


Finally the third and most famous sermon contradicted the dogma of the 
Birth and Death of God.’’ That is, he contradicted the doétrine of the Econo- 
mic Appropriation. And by denying that God the Word is our High Priest he 
made a mere man, a creature, our Mediator, and so would bring in creature wor- 
ship by leading men to attribute impliedly the infinite and prerogative attributes 
of Jehovah to a mere creature by teaching them to address invocation and prayer, 
acts of religious service, to that mere creature, when they asked him, as did the 
Christians of Alexandria in Origen’s day to intercede with the Father for them, 
as he shows, as quoted on page 367 above. 


Neale tells us on a part of this sermon on page 243 that ‘‘7¢ suppresses the 
name of Proclus.’? ‘This fact bears on the question whether the sermon is Pro- 
clus’, which we will treat of elsewhere on Ephesus. Neale’s assertion on page 
239 that it was delivered on the Festival of the Annunciation, March 25, is dis- 
proved by the fact that that Festival is not mentioned till the seventh century, 
as is shown in Meyrick’s Article ‘‘ Wary the Virgin, Festivals of,’’ on pages 1141, 
1142 of vol. II. of Smith and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Christian Antiquities 
Meyrick sets down as spurious ‘‘sermons alleged to have been delivered on the 
occasion of the festival [of the Annunciation] by fathers and early writers.” 
See there. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 418 


we hear him say those things but many others also besides heard 


(695), page 356. I. Peter iii., 18, iv., 1; Col. i., 22; Acts ii., 23-33, and I, 
Cor. ii., 8, where in the expression, ‘‘ crucified the Lord of glory,’’ the words 
“« Lord of glory,” naturally refer to God the Word, and so that text is a case of 
Economic Appropriation. 

(696), page 357. Heb. ii., 9, I. Peter iii., 18 and iv., 1, and Col. 1., 21, 22. 

(697), page 358. Col. i., 18 and Rev. 1., 5. 

(698), page 358. John xiv., 6; Col. iii., 4; I. John i., 1; Johni., 1-5, where 
the reference is plainly to God the Word as the Life, as in the other places also. 

(699), page 358, John v., 21-30; Philip. iii., 20, 21; Col.) 111]... 5, 2; Joana, 
33, 39, 49, 54, 57: 

(700), page 358. John i., 1-5: see the end of note 698 above. 

(701), page 358. Galat.i., 8, 9. 

(702), page 363. Canon VI. of the First Ecumenical Synod mentions Egypt, 
Libya and Pentapolis as subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. Afterwards Abys- 
sinia was converted and added to it. ‘‘ Diocese,’’ used in the civil notitia for a 
large section generally comprising several provinces, was adopted by the Church 
in the sense of what we now call a Patriarch’s Jurisdiction. But the patriarchs 
at first seem to have been only the greater Metropolitans. The Bishop of each 
provincial metropolis was a Metropolitan. A suffragan Bishop’s jurisdiction was 
called a parish and consisted of many congregations. These terms have changed 
their meaning in later times. 

Under each Patriarch of a Diocese was the Council of the Diocese, which 
met only occasionally. It is referred to in Canon VI. of the Second Ecumenical 
Synod and in Canon IX. of the Fourth, where the chief Bishop of the Diocese is 
called the Zxarch of the Diocese (Greek, τὸν ἔξαρχον τῆς διοικήσεως). 


For originally, it is said, that Patriarch was the peculiar designation of the 
Bishop of Antioch, the head of the Diocese of the East, the National Church of 
the Syrian race. In Canon VI. of the First Council the head of each of the great 
sees such as Rome, Alexandria and Antioch is called Metropolitan and his 
jurisdiction a Province. 

Under each metropolitan was the Synod of his province which met twice 
every year to hear appeals and to decide on them. See Canon V. of Nicaea, 
Canon VI. of I. Constantinople, XIX. of Chalcedon, etc. Canon ΙΧ. of the Fourth 
Synod authorizes an appeal over the head of any Metropolitan or Exarch to the 
Bishop of Constantinople, as so to speak, the head of the National Church of the 
Eastern Empire. This as making a Greek see, Constantinople, supreme over 
each national Church there, gave great offence to different Oriental nations, such 
as the Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Armenians, and had probably much to do 
with their final separation from the Universal Church. 

By the Ecumenical Canons Bishops alone can sit in Synods; and they alone 
constitute the Ecclesia Docens, that is, the Teaching Church, in accordance with 
Matt. xxviii., 19, 20, the presbyters, that is, elders, having the right to teach 


414 Act I. of Ephesus. 


him, not many days ago when he was disputing with us in Ephesus. 


mediately only, that is, derivatively, that is, by delegation from the Apostolate, 
that is, Episcopate to whom Christ first gave it. The heresy of permitting the 
lower clergy and people to sit in a house co-ordinate with Bishops resulted in the 
wreck of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1871, when 
said Lower House defeated the attempt of the Bishops to crush Keble’s new- 
fangled heresy on the Eucharist, and to correct Romanizing tendencies. To- 
day many of its clergy hold to invocation of saints, and worship of the 
Eucharist, contrary to their own formularies, and are unchecked, and being 
allowed to vote in the election of Bishops have chosen some idolaters of their 
own kind to the Episcopate. 


We should have several Dioceses in this land, each consisting of several] 
‘provinces with an Exarch over each, and a Patriarch at New York or Washing- 
ton over all with a Synod of the whole nation under him. 


See on the whole matter of the division of the Church into Provinces, Dio- 
ceses, etc., Bingham’s Antiquities, Book IX. and Appendix to it. There is no 
appeal from a National Council to any thing but an Ecumenical Council. See 
also pages 118-121 of Vol. I. of Nicaea in this set. No Exarch or Patriarch has any 
right to usurp power and to exercise jurisdiction outside his own Diocese: see 
Canon II. of theSecond Ecumenical Synod. Yet by Canon IX. of Chalcedon the 
Bishop of Constantinople may receive appeals from any Diocese of the East, and 
so is an exception: but whether the West ever made that canon Ecumenical 
by assenting to it will be examined in the proper place. Rome has by the 
‘Canons of the whole Church no jurisdiction outside of Italy. See Bingham’s 
Antiquities, Book IX. chapter 1, sections 9, 10, 11 and 12. Of course the ap- 
peal to the judgment of the whole Church distributed in sees is always in order 
as well as the appeal toaz Ecumenical Synod. But both appeals are in abeyance 
owing to the idolatry aud creature-worship of the great bulk of the Episcopate, 
so that itis sinful to make such men judges. The bulk of those who hold to 
the doctrines of the Six Synods on creature-worship are in the Anglican, Lutheran 
and Presbyterian Churches. 


(703), page 365. Theopemptus and Daniel, together with Potamon and 
Comarius, had been sent with the decision of Celestine of Rome and a Roman 
Synod and with the similar decision of Cyril of Alexandria and a Synod of the 
Diocese of Egypt, to Nestorius that unless he accepted the truth and renounced 
his errors within ten days after receipt of those documents, he would be held by 
them an alien to the Episcopate and to the Church. According to the article on 
Cyril of Alexandriain Smith and Wace’s Diftionary of Christian Biography the 
four Bishops aforesaid presented those ultimatums to Nestorius on Lord’s Day, 
November 30, or December 7, 430, consequently full six months before that June 
22, A. D. 431, Roman time, when the first session of the Third Ecumenical 
Synod began. According to Migne’s Diétionnatre des Conctles the Council of 
Alexandria which approved the letter of Cyril which has the XII. Anathemas 
was held on November 3, 430. 


Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 415. 


Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, said, When faith and piety towards 


(704), page 378. Or ‘‘the aforesaid papers,’ Greek, τὰ εἰρημένα χαρτία. 


(705), page 381. Those who fault the Third Ecumenical Synod’s treatment. 
of Nestorius are not apt to notice the boorishnesss or at least discourtesy of that. 
heresiarch on this occasion and before, and his violation of his own word and 
engagement. 

(706), page 384. Notwithstanding Cyril’s clear explanation of his meaning 
and of the Orthodox Faith in his Letters to Nestorius, and his plain rejection of 
Apollinarian error in both his Letters read in this First Act, Nestorius still per- 
sists against light in his denial of the Incarnation, and in worshipping Christ’s. 
humanity. 


(707), page 388. Or ““222 peril from a certain one of them.’? The Nestor- 
ians were violent enough where they had the power. After this they induced 
the Persians to drive the Orthodox faith from that land; and its light was. 
quenched there in the blood of hundreds of its professors. See the facts stated 
on those matters in JMZ/urdock’s Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. I. pages. 
362, 363, and in the article on ‘‘ Barsumas the Nestorian,’’ in Smith and Wace’s 
Diétionary of Christian Biography, and Gibbon’s Rome chapter 47, who states 
that ‘‘ the blood of 7,700 Monophysites or Catholics was shed,’ to secure the. 
sole sway of Nestorianism as the only tolerated form of Christianity in the Persian 
Empire. Gibbon in the same connection informs us that it was a Nestorian 
who instigated the Persian monarch to persecute the Christians who differed 
from them, and that in that persecution, ‘‘7he Nestorians * * * were en- 
couraged by the smile, and armed with the sword of despotism.’ 


(708), page 391. The Greek clause here ἐπὶ τῆς πίστεως τῶν ὑπομνημάτων εἰπεῖν, 
is rendered in the Latin of Coletti Conc. tom. 3, col. 1050, ut in praesentium act- 
orum fidem et confirmationem nobis exponant. 


(709), page 394. Or ‘‘ chance matters.” 

(710), page 395. Χριστόν, that is, Christ. 

(711), page 4o1. Greek, προτιμῶ, that is, ““7 prefer piety to any friendship.’* 
Surely this is a noble sentiment and one well worthy of a Christian Bishop ! 
Piety is here used as often for Christ’s true religion 


(712), page 406. The Letter of Nestorius to Cyril which had already teen 
condemned by the Synod in this First Act seems to be meant. 


(713), page 406. That isin that Letter. See it on pages 155-166 above. 


(714), page 408. Nestorius’ words here and elsewhere must be taken with a 
full knowledge of his heresy, and of Cyril’s explanation of the Orthodox terms. 
Cyril asserts the human thing's, such as suffering and death of God the Word, 
but Lconomically only in order to preserve the SUPREME position of Gov in that 
creature, and so to guard against Man-Service. Whereas Nestorius perverts. 
Cyril’s language, notwithstanding his own repeated explanations of it, in such a 
way as to make him assert those human things and the other human things /Von- 
Economically of God the Word, and as an argument in favor of his own denial 


416 Act ἤ of Fphesus. 


God are matters before us, it is necessary to lay aside every private 
affection. Wherefore though I very much loved the lord Nestorius 
above the rest, and was eager to save him in every way, it is neces- 
sary now for me totell, ina truth-loving way, the things which were 
said by him, lest my soul be condemned for concealing the truth. 
When I came to the city of the Ephesians I at once held a conversa- 
tion with the aforesaid man (718); and having ascertained that he did 
not think rightly, I zealously tried in every way to set him right and 
to draw him away from his wicked opinions. And I perceived [at 
length] that that very man himself did co-confess [the faith] with his 
lips, and that he was now changed from such a mind [of misbelief ]. 
But after an interval of ten or twelve days, when a certain discussion 
was started again, I stood up for the doctrine of the truth; and I saw 
that he resisted it, and learned that he had fallen into two absurdities 
(719) at once. For the first was clear from his absurd question-di- 


of the Word’s Inflesh, and for his own Man-Serving theory. These facts must 
not be forgotten, as they too often are. 

(715), page 409. That is, in Ephesus. 

(716), page 411. Greek, ἃ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἀπηγόρευσε περὶ Tov Θεοῦ Λόγου λέγεσθαι, 
τουτέστι τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, ὀνειδίζων Αὐτῷ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, ταῦτα καὶ ἐνταῦθα διαλεγόμενος ἐφη" 
μὴ δεῖν περὶ Θεοῦ λέγειν γαλακτοτροφίαν, μηδὲ γέννησιν τὴν ἐκ παρθένου" οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα 
πολλάκις ἔφη, διμηναῖον ἢ τριμηναῖον μὴ δεῖν λέγεσθαι Θεόν. See the above in Harduin. 
Cenc; ΟΠ 1 col. 207: Ὁ. 


If any man wishes a plainer denial of the truth of God that the Word 
was made flesh (John i., 14), thanthis Ican not giveit. Afterthis plain utter- 
ance, testified to by one or two Bishops with the statement that many others be- 
sides had heard it a few days before in that very city of Ephesus; after 
the similar utterance cited further on in this very Act I. from Nestorius’ 
own writings, and after his own repeated rejection of the Orthodox utter- 
ances of Cyril and of the Council accompanied on their part with fair 
and just explanations to remove all Apollinarian cavil and misinterpretation; 
after all these things there can be no just excuse for this Man-Worshipper, and 
denier of the Incarnation of God the Word, nor for those who fight against 
Christ and His Church Universal by defending him, and by slandering the God- 
led action of the Third Ecumenical Council against him. See Anathemas XI., 
XIII. and XIV. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against all such apologists. 


(717), Rage 412. On this misrepresentation of the language of the Orthodox 

see the last two notes above. Nestorius would give the false impression that 

hey denied the eternity of God the Word. He himself was a type of the not 

profound popular orator, who has power to crack the ears of the groundlings 
aud to turn them in wrath against a deeper, a sounder and a nobler theologian. 


keeading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 417 


lemma, which he was wont to put to those who were answering him, 
which consisted in asserting that it was necessary for them either to 
deny utterly that the Divinity of the Sole-Born [out of the Father] had 
puton a man, or to confess what was impious, that the Divinity of the 
father, and the Divinity of the Son, and the Divintty of the Spirit were 
co-incarnated (720) with God the Word. ‘Those utterances were in 
every way the outcome of an evilly-artful mind, and of a mind which 
had cast away the pious faith. Then a second matter was started, 
for a certain Bishop who was with him [Nestorius] began to speak, 
and said that the Son who endured the suffering was one, but that God 
the Word was another (721). I was not able to endure that blas- 
phemy, and [so] took leave of all and departed. And another of 
those with him kept taking the side of the Jews, by making the plea 
that they had not committed impiety against God but against a man (722). 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Inasmuch as the statement of 
our most pious and most God-revering Fellow-Ministers Theodotus 


(718), page 416. Nestorius. 

(719), page 416. Or, ‘‘two things out of place.”’ 

(720), page 417. There is no force in this objection. It serves to show the 
shallowness of Nestorius’ own knowledge. For all the Orthodox have ever con- 
fessed that the Substance of God the Word was ‘‘dorn out.of the Father before 
all the Worlds,’ as we confess in an Ecumenical Creed, and that It is now 
locally in the Man put on. The Word and the Spirit are now outside of the 
Father’s body. A good illustration of the Trinity and the separate existence of 
each of the Three divine Persons is given us at the baptism of Christ, where the 
Father speaks from heaven, the Son is coming up from the waters of the Jordan 
and the Spirit is coming down out of heaven in the form of adove. Nestorius 
failed to see that the Swdstance of the Three Persons is now separate, though one 
in operation often, and that while They are all as God, omniscient, omnipresent, 
and omnipotent, nevertheless the Substance of Each is confined within the limits 
in which It chooses to dwell and move. 


It should never be forgotten that the Epiphany (Greek, ᾿Επιφάνεια, that is, 
the Showing) or, as itis better termed, the Θεοφάνεια, and Θεοφάνια, that is, the 
God-Showing is the most ancient and most fit Trinity Day of the Church, and 
should ever be observed. See on those Greek words in Sophocles’ Glossary and 
also in his Lexicon. If it be not convenient to observe it, allusion should be 
made to the Trinity on the Lord’s Day after it. Trinity Sunday is as late as A. 
D. 1305. The Greeks have it not. 


(721), page 417. Let us remember that this was said by a man of a party 
which held to Nestorius’ denial of the Incarnation, and that it was meant to 


affirm that infidelity. 


418 Act I. of Ephesus, 


and Acacius is clear, it is next in order that the opinion which our 
blessed Fathers and Bishops have expressed on the matters before us,, 
be read and inserted into the Acts. 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, said, 
Inasmuch as we hold in our hands books (723) of the most holy and 
most consecrated Fathers and of Bishops and of different martyrs. 
(724), and have chosen a few chief passages out of them all; if it seem. 
good to you, we will read them. 


Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Let those also be read and in- 
serted [into the Acts]. And they were read as follows: 


[PassaGE I]. A Passage of PETER THE MOST HOLY BISHOP OF 
ALEXANDRIA AND MARTYR: @aken out of his Book on the Divinity 
(725). 

‘‘ Because both che favor (ἡ χάρις) and the truth truly came through 
Jesus Anointed (726), therefore according to the Apostolic utterances, 
We have been saved by favor (χάριτι); and that, it says, not of ourselves, 
it ts the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast (727). Yet 
though by God’s will the Word was made flesh (728) and was found’ 


(722), page 417. This would very naturally be understood by the Orthodox 
in accordance with Nestorius’ own statements to include not only the idea of a 
difference between God the Word and the flesh put on by Him, which no one 
doubted, but also a denial of the Incarnation. For we must not wrench these 
words out of their context, but take them in connection with the plain denial of 
the Inflesh of the Word which goes before and follows. 


(723), page 417. βιβλία. 

(724), page 418. Or, ‘‘ of different witnesses.” 

(725), page 418. This passage is given from Act I. of Ephesus in col. 509, 
and after of tom.18 of Migne’s Fatrologia Graeca. ‘The above Passages from. 
the Fathers as well as those from Nestorius further on are extant, in Latin only, 
in Act I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, in which the original Greek was. 
quoted. But the Greek of that part of Act I. of Chalcedon is lost. It is found. 
however in Act 1. of Ephesus, 

On the Sentences from the Fathers in Act I. of the the Third Ecumenical 
Synod see Vincent of Lerins in his Second Commonitory, chap. iii., (or chap.. 
xxx.,) page 94 of the edition published by Joseph Robinson, Baltimore, A. D. 
1847. 

Hardouin in his margin gives some valuable information as to these pas-- 
sages cited from Fathers. 

(726), page 418. Johni,, 17. 

(727), page 418. Eph. ii., 8, 9. 

(728), page 418. Johni., 14. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. . 419 


πξ-:Ξ Ξ-- 


in fashion asa ἡῖαγι (729), He did not leave His Divinity behind 
Him (730), for He Who was rich did not become poor (731) to depart 
from the perfections of His power and glory, but to endure the death 
for us sinners, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. 
He was put to death in the flesh but was guickened by the Spirit (732).” 

[PAssaGE 2]. Azd after some other words, he |Peter of Alex- 
andria| says, ‘‘And therefore the Evangelist speaks the truth when 
he says, Zhe Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us (734), 
that is, fromthe very time that the angel saluted the Virgin, saying, 
Rejoice (725), thou that art highly favored (736), the Lord ts with thee. 
For the expression, Zhe Lordis with thee, of Gabriel, means the same 
as the expression God the Word is with thee, for it signifies that He 
entered the womb (737) and became flesh, as it is written, Zhe Holy 
Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the Highest will over- 
shadow thee, and therefore that Holy Thing that will be born [out of 
thee] shall be called Goad’s Son" (738). 

[PASSAGE 3]. And again after some other words, he [Peter of 
Alexandria] says, ‘‘ But God the Word was made flesh in the womb 
of the Virgin, without emission of a man’s seed, but by the will of 
God who is able to accomplish all things (739). And He did 


(729), page 419. Philip. ii., 8. 
(730), page 419. Or, ‘‘ He was not deprived of His Divinity.” 


(731), page 4 τὸ: 2: Cor. viil., 0: 

(732), page 419. Or, ‘‘i2 the Spirit.’’ (I. Peter iii., 18; ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι is 
the Greek. Ζωοποιηθείς may mean made alive, or preserved alive; πνεύματι may 
mean ‘‘dy the Spirit,” or ‘‘in Spirit.’?” Our common English Version pre- 
fers the former rendering. I have met several instances in ancient writers where 
πνεῦμα seems to mean the dzvinity of the Word: I do not feel sure as to the ren- 
dering here. If we take spirit as some ancients do, in the sense of Divinity be- 
cause Christ says, that “ God zs a Spirit,’’ then we must render, ‘‘ He was put 
to death in the flesh, but preserved alive in the Divinity.’? See what I have 
written on this in this Set elsewhere. See, on the use of the term Spzrit by 
the ancients for the Divinity of God the Word, in the Oxford translation of 
Tertullian, pages 322-325, note H. 

(733), page 419. This Passage of Peter of Alexandria is given from the 
above Act I. of Ephesus, in col. 1052 of tome III. of Coleti’s Concilia. 

(734), page 419. John i., 14. 

(735), page 419. χαῖρε. This term means literally, re7oice, and is used as a 
salutation in that sense. 

(736), page 419. κεχαριτωμένη. This term is also rendered by ‘‘ favored,” 
without the ‘‘ Azghly,”’ before it. 

(737), page 419. This passage and that of Athanasius next following do cer- 
tainly prove what the Synod takes them and other passages to prove; and what 
Nestorius denied, namely, that God the Word Personally, that is, in his Sub- 


420 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


not need the operation or presence of aman. For the power of God 
inwrought more effectively than a man, by overshadowing the Virgin 
with the Holy Spirit who came upon her.”’ 

[PAssAGE 4]. A Passage of the most holy ATHANASIUS, who was 
BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA,taken out of his Book Against the Arians 
(740). 

‘‘ Many indeed, have been holy, and clear of all sin. Aye, and 
Jeremiah was sanctified from his mother’s womb (741), and John 
while yet borne as a foetus leaped for joy at the voice of Mary the 
Bringer Forth of God (742).’’ 

‘(And nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over 
those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression 
(743), and so men remained none the less mortal and corruptible, re- 
ceptive of the sufferings of their own nature. But now since the 


stance dwelt in the Man put on from the time of that Man’s conception in the 
Virgin’s womb: and that the Son is not therefore merely an inspired man, but 
God the Word who éook flesh in the Virgin’s womb, avd put on a man, or, as we 
confess in the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council, ‘‘Who took flesh of the 
Holy Ghost and of Mary the Virgin and put on a Man.” 

(738), page 419. Luke 1., 35. 

(739), page 419. Lukei., 37, etc. 

(740), page 420. This passage is found in Athanasius’ Four Discourses 
Against the Arians, Discourse 777., chapter 26, pages 446, 447 of the Oxford 
English translation, In the same place, just before, Athanasius shows that the 
reason for ascribing the human things to the Word is to avoid looking to a Man 
and praying to a manand so becoming worshippers of a man, that is, Christ’s 
humanity. I give it from Coleti’s Conczlia, tome 111., col. 1052, 1053. 


(741), page 420. See note “‘7’’ on this, in the Oxford translation, page 446. 
One must however be cautious regarding some things in that Version, for they 
are very defective, like, for instance, the translation of Θεοτόκος, by Mother of 
God, which is not correct, but Bringer Forth of God, as we render it above, is. 
If the Council of Ephesus had wished to say Mother of God, they could easily 
have done so by using the four words, ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ. As they did not we have 
no right to insert into a passage used as a proof passage by them like the above, 
that four-word expression, for the more exact one word which they diduse. John 
Henry Newman was ailing with idolatrous leanings when he made that version, 
so that although it contains much valuable information in some of the notes, it 
is, on the other hand, inexact and incorrect in the textin places and in some of 
the notes and misleading to the imperfectly informed. It needs therefore to be 
revised by some Orthodox Scholar, and some of its notes purged of error and 
new ones added. 

(742), page 420. Θεοτόκου. Seenote ‘‘s’’ page 447, Oxford translation on 
this. 

(743), page 420. Rom. v., 14. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 421 


Word kas been made man, and made the things of the flesh His own 
(744) those things no longer touch (745) the body, for God the Word 
came in it, but they have been done away (746) by Him. And 
therefore men no longer remain, in accordance with their own 
passions, sinners and dead, but having risen by the power of the 
Word they continue forever immortal and incorruptible. And there- 
fore is He, Who has given to all others birth in order that they may 
exist, said Himself to be born in flesh which was taken out of Mary 
the Bringer Forth of God (τῆς θεοτόχου Mapiag) in order that He might 
transfer our birth to Himself, and that we might no longer, as being 
earth alone, go away into earth, but that we, as having been con- 
joined with the Word Who came out of heaven (747), might be led 
up through Himinto heaven. And so therefore He has not incong- 
ruously transferred to Himself the other sufferings of the body (748), 
that we may no longer as men die, but as belonging to the Word, par- 
take of eternal life. For no longer according to that first birth in 
Adam do we all die, but henceforth our birth and all our fleshly 
weakness having been transferred to the Word, we rise from the 
earth, for the curse on account of sin has been done away for the sake 
of Him Who in our likeness (749), was made a curse for us.’’ (750). 

[PassaGE 5]. A Passage of the same [writer] taken out of his 
Epistle to Epictetus (751). 

But how (752) have those who are called Christians dared to 
doubt whether the Lord who came forth out of Mary is God’s Son 
in [His] Substance and Nature; but that as regards [ His] flesh He is 
of the seed of David and out of the holy Mary’s flesh? For who then 
have become so rash and audacious as to assert that the Anointed 


(744), page 421. This ascribing of human sufferings to God the Word, is as 
Cyril explains Economical. It helps to avoid Man-Service, as a passage of 
Athanasius quoted on pages 237-240 of vol I. of Vicaea in this Set shows. 

(745), page 421. Or, ‘‘2o longer fasten on,” or “‘no longer cling to.”’ 

(746), page 421. Or, ““ destroyed.” 

(747), page 421. Greek, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τῷ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ Λόγῳ ovvadfévtec. This last 
Greek word is the conjoined of Nestorius, used by him to designate a conjunétion 
between the two Natures of Christ such as exists between Godthe Word and a 
mere saint, that is, a mere holy man, as opposed to the Incarnation. Cyril uses 
it in that sense here of the relation of the Christian to Christ. 

(748), page 421. This is the doctrine of Economic Appropriation. 

(749), page 421. Or, “772 us,” “among us.” 

(750), page 421. Galat. ili., 13. 

(751), page 421. I have translated the above passage from Coleti’s Concz/ia, 
tome iii., col. 1052, 1053. Itis found also in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 
26, col. 1053. 

(752), page 421. Or ‘‘ why.” 


422 Act I.) of “Liphesus. 


One who suffered in flesh and was crucified was not Lord, and Savi- 
our, and God, and Son of the Father (753)? Or why do those wish 
to be named Christians who say that the Word came into a holy 
Man (754), as He came upon one of the Prophets, and that He Who 
took the body which had come out of Mary (755), did not become 
very Man, but that the Anointed One is One, and the Word of God 
Another Who was the Father’s Son before Mary and before the 
worlds? Or how can those be Christians who say that the Son is 
One, and the Word of God is another ? (756). 

[PassaGE 6]. And again after some other words, he writes (757): 

But these things did not occur, as some have understood by way 
of external relation and external presence (758). God forbid! But 
the Saviour having really and truly become Man, became the salva- 
tion of the whole Man. For if the Word had been in the body by 


eee ___———eeee --Ο-ΑἫ--- - ,ρ,υἷΚσσσσο 


(753). Here Athanasius teaches the doctrine of the Appropriation of the 
human things, that is, of the perfect Man put on, to God the Word fully 
and plainly. Ina place in his Four Orations A. gainst the Arians quoted by me 
on pages 237-240 of vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, Athanasius shows that this 
emphasizing the preeminence of the Creator Word who put on, over the Creature 
who was put on, was done to avoid bringing in service to that Man. 


(754). This is adduced in condemnation of the belief of Nestorius that 
the Substance of God the Word was not in the Man, but that He indwelt 
him as He indwelt the prophets, that is, by His Holy Spirit only; which indwell- 
ing is called Relative because it was not done by the Word in the actual Sub- 
stance of His own divine Person, but by the Spirit only which is velated to Him 
as being His Spirit. 


(755). This is adduced in condemnation of the Nestorian error that 
the Word was not in the babe in Mary’s womb but was joined to him exter- 
nally, that is by His Holy Spirit’s indwelling that babe at some time after 
his birth or at some time after he grew up. ‘These passages of the Fathers are 
very apposite and very conclusive. The Definition of the Fifth Synod condemns 
the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia that the Son’s humanity gradually grew in 
holiness by the Spirit’s indwelling. See its Anathema XII. 


(756). ‘This was a Nestorian error, and was a logical sequence of their view 
that the Substance of God the Word was not in the Man conjoined to Him, to 
use their language. 

(757). ‘This is found col. 1061, tome 26 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. But 
I have translated it from Act I. of Ephesus, in tome iii. of Coletz’s Conczlia 

(758). Coleti Come., tom. 3, 1053: Οὐ θέσει δὲ ταῦτα ἐγένετο, μῇ γένοιτο, ὥς τινες 
πάλιν ὑπέλαβον. The Latin for θέσει in the parallel column in Coleti is ““εχίπη- 
seca praesentia.” The meaning of the Nestorians, as is shown here and else- 
where in the Acts of the Third Synod, and in Cyril’s writings, is that the Sub- 
stance of the Word was not zz the Man conjoined, as they said, to Him but was. 
always outside of that Man. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 423 


— 


way of external relation and external juxtaposition as they suppose, 
inasmuch as an assertion of an external relation and an external 
juxtaposition is an assertion of a mere appearance [only of an Incar- 
natian of Godthe Word], it will follow in accordance with the [misbe- 
lief of the] most impious Manichaeus that the salvation and the res- 
urrection of men are asserted in [mere] appearance [only]. But our 
salvation is not a [mere] phantom, nor is it of the body alone, but 
the salvation which has really been wrought for us is a salvation of 
the whole man, soul and body; for as the Scriptures of God teach, 
the body which came out of Mary was human in its nature, and was 
a real body of the Saviour. 


[PASSAGE 7]. A passage of Julius who was the most holy Bishop 
of Rome, taken out of his Epistle to Docius (759). 


I would add that θέσις is sometimes rendered by adoption, which comes to the 
same sense. In that case we should have to translate above, ‘‘ But these things 
did not occur, as some have understood, by way of adoption.’”? But the text 
translation makes the sense clearer. If Christ were God’s Son not by Nature 
but by adoption, He would be a Son in the same sense only as we creatures are. 
For we are not God’s Sons by nature but by adoption at and by baptism. See 
on our adoption Romans viii., 15, 23; Rom. ix., 4; Gal. iv., 5 and Eph. i. 5. 
The word used in the New Testament passages is not however θέσις but υἱοθεσία. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, a chief Nestorian writer before Nestorius, as Anathema 
XII. of the Fifth Synod shows held that Christ was a mere man at the time of 
his baptism but ‘‘ by his baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was 
deemed worthy of adoption to Sonship; and just like an Emperor's image is 
bowed to [that is, worshipped by bowing] with reference to the Person of God the 
Word.’ Does this imply that Theodore did not believe his mere human Christ 
to be worshippable till his adoption to Sonship by His baptism ? 


I quote this whole part of Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: 


ANATHEMA XII. ‘“‘If any one defends Theodore the Impious of Mopsuestia 
who said that God the Word is one, and the Anointed One (τὸν Χριστόν) another 
who was troubled by the passions of the [fallen] soul and the lusts of the flesh, 
and was little by little parted from things which are more evil, and so was made 
better by progress in works, and by his conduct became blameless; that as a 
mere man he was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Ghost, and by his baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was 
deemed worthy of the adoption to Sonship; and just like an Emperor’s image 
he is to be worshipped with reference to the Person of God the Word, and that 
after his resurrection he became immutable in his thoughts and wholly sinless.” 
I add the Greek of the part of the above which bears most on Theodore’s doc- 
trine of when his mere human Christ’s adoption to Sonship occurred, and when 
he became worshippable: Ei τις ἀντιποιεῖται Θεοδώροι" Tov ἀσεβοῦς τοῦ Mowoveoriac, Tot 


424 Act I. of Ephesus. 


And for the completing of the faith the Son of God is preached 
85 having taken flesh out of the Virgin Mary, and as having taber- 
nacled among men; (760) and not [merely] as having operated in a 
Man. For that was done in the prophets and apostles (761); He 
was perfect God in flesh, and a man perfect by the Spirit (762); not 
two sons, one a real Son who took a man, and another a mortal 
man who was taken by God, but one Sole-born in heaven, Sole-born 
on earth, [that is] God. 
[PassaGE 8]. A passage of Felix the most holy Bishop of Rome 


and Martyr, taken out of his Epistle to Maximus the Bishop (763), and 
to the Clergy of Alexandria. 


εἰπόντος ὃ * * ὡς ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον βαπτισθῆναι εἰς ὄνομα Πατρός, καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ‘Ayiov 


Πνεύματος καὶ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τὴν χάριν τοῦ ‘Ayiov ἹΠνεύματος λαβεῖν, καὶ υἱοθεσίας 
ἀξιωθδήναι" καὶ κατ᾽ ἰσότητα βασιλικῆς εἱκόνος, εἰς πρόσωπον τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου προσκυνεῖσθαι. 

(759). Α note on this in Coleti’s Cozc., tom. 111., col. 1055, 1056, translated 
from Latin, reads as follows: 


“This is cited by Leontius against Nestorius and Eutyches in certain manu- 
scripts as 20 Prosdocius; and in Marius Mercator and Facundus, as out of [an 
Epistle] to Docius, as it seems. Anastasius the Presbyter in a manuscript of the 
College of the Society of Jesus at Paris has to Docius.’? The Greek of the above 
is given in col. 958 of tom. ὃ of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. But the rest of the 
Epistle as there given seems to be interpolated by some Apollinarian, and is not 
the Epistle quoted by the Third Ecumenical Synod, for it contradi@s Cyril and 
that Council. Probably the genuine Epistle, with the exception of the fragment 
above, is lost. The genuine is testified to, as is stated in the Wonztum on this 
Epistle in col. 952 of tome 8 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, by Act I. of Ephesus 
as above, by Cyril of Alexandria in his Defence of his Twelve Chapters Against 
the Orientals at Anathema VI. by Photius, Cod. 230, page 845, by Marius Mercator 
‘in his Excerpts from the Council of Ephesus (see Migne’s Patrologia Latina, 
tom. 48, col. 870 and- 947); and by Facundus, Book I. chap. 5. The part of it 
quoted in the Council of Ephesus is testified to as an Excerpt from Cyril of 
Alexandria by Hypatius bishop of Ephesus in a conference with the Sever- 
ians held in A. Ὁ. £35, and by Eulogius of Alexandria in Photius, Cod. 250, 
page 845, and it is plain that it was read in the hearing and with the approval 
of the Council of Ephesus itself and was inserted in the Acts together with other 
testimonies of Fathers. And hence it was regarded as an authentic writing of 
Julius by Marius Mercator, Vincent of Lerins, Facundus, Hypatius of Ephesus 
and by Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria. But on the other side Leontius of Byzan- 
tium of the seventh Century, is quoted in the same Monitum as against its 
genuineness. And indeed in his work De Seétis he does ascribe this Epistle to 
some Timothy. For after stating that the heretics who opposed the dotrine of 
the Two Natures in Christ appealed to the so-called Epistle of Julius Bishop of 
Rome to Dionysius Bishop of Corinth as favoring their heresy, he denies its 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 425 


As regards the Inflesh of the Word and the faith, we believe in 
our Lord Jesus Anointed, Who was born out of the Virgin Mary, that ° 


genuineness and ascribes it to Apollinaris the heretic, as he does the whole seven 
Epistles under the name of Julius. Then he comes to the further assertion of 
those heretics that that Epistle to Dionysius of Corinth is in the Aéts of Ephesus 
and replies to it as follows: 

“They [the heretics] say that τέ lies among the Acts of Ephesus in the time 
of the blessed Cyril: and they plainly lie. Forno such thing les there, but that 
which lies there 1s another Epistle as from Julius, but it is not Julius? but 
Timothy's as can be learned from many copies. But forasmuch as it in no way 
opposes us [the Orthodox] we are under no obligation to expend any care on it 
even though they may say that it is Julius’.’? See the Greek incol. 1253 of 
tome 86, Part I. in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. The Romish editor of the 
Monttum above mentioned. moved I presume by fear for the Roman See’s 
infallibility, and willing enough to prove that the Third Synod erred on faéts, to 
save Rome pays heed to Leontius here but without sufficient reason. For as to 
the first part of Leontius’ remarks it does not affect the genuineness of the pas- 
sage from Julius in Act I. of Ephesus, for he merely asserts that the Epistle 
alleged to be of Julius to Dionysius of Corinth is not the same as the Epistle 
from which was taken the passage of Julius which the whole Church in Ecu- 
menical Synod assembled, approved and made, with other patristic passages, 
the ground work and basis of its Definitions and its condemnation and deposi- 
tion of Nestorius as a heresiarch. And this statement of Leontius is true, for he 
quotes a passage which is found in the Epistle to Dionysius and not in that from 
which the passage in Act I. of Ephesus is taken. 


But as to his allegation that the passage in Act I. of Ephesus is taken from 
an Epistle ofsome Timothy, not from an Epistle of Julius, it is sufficient to re- 
mark that as is shown above it is quoted as above confessed in the Wonitum as 
Julius’, by Cyril of Alexandria in his Apology for the Twelve Chapters against the 
Orientals, by Marius Mercator and by Vincent of Lerins, all of whom flourished at 
the time of the Council of Ephesus and therefore long before Leontius; and that 
it appears in all the editions of the Councils, and its authenticity is admitted by 
Facundus, Hypatius and Eulogius of Alexandria, all of whom lived in the sixth 
century. And, so far as appears, no writer denied its authenticity before Leontius, 
who seems actuated by over partizan zeal and lack in this case of critical ability. 
See the MWonztum, col. 952, tome 8 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina and col. 961, id. 


Besides, if we understand him to ascribe the passage to the heresiarch 
Timothy the leader of one and that the worst wing of the Apollinarian heretics 
and creature servers, then he a¢tually believed that God the Holy Ghost had 
guided the Bishops of the Third Ecumenical Synod to take it as authoritative and 
as a basis, with passages of Orthodox Fathers, for an Orthodox Definition !!! 
But this is absurd. And as to copies containing Timothy’s name instead of 
Julius’, we can not believe that any copyist himself Orthodox, ever so slandered 
and misrepresented that glorious Synod of the Universal Church. It looks very 
much as though Leontius had made a bad blunder here, if he means to assert 


420 Act Tof Ephesus: 


He Himself is the Eternal Son and Word of God (6 τοῦ θεοῦ ἀΐδιος Υἱὸς: 


that he found Timothy’s name in any copies of that Council. On further ex- 
amination however, Isee that he may mean that an Epistle under the name of 
Timothy had the passage quoted in Act I. of Ephesus as from Julius. This is 
very possible. For the Apollinarians as Leontius himself shows, were guilty of 
interpolating sound works or forging entire works to favor their heresy. Yet 
probably he brands as spurious the Epistle of Julius which contains the pas- 
sage in Act I. of Ephesus from him, which Epistle however the Apollinarians 
had interpolated in other places to favor their own heresy. They would natur- 
ally in order to make the imposture more perfect retain the genuine passage 
cited in Act I. of the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus to procure credence for the 
whole document. Or if the whole Epistle which Leontius saw was their own 
figment, they would naturally as a matter of cunning, incorporate into it the 
genuine passage in Act I. of Ephesus to make the rest seem more genuine. 
Yet the Two Hundred Bishops of Ephesus quoted not a spurious but a 
genuine document of Julius, which in its original form is now lost, except the 
passage which they quote from it. 


It will be noticed that Leontius states as to the Orthodoxy of the Epistle 
which the Monophysites alleged to be that from which the extract of Julius in 
Act I. of Ephesus is taken, that ‘‘ 72 72 no way opposes us,’’ that is, the Orthodox. 
Yet those heretics evidently quoted some part of it as favoring their error, for the 
context seems to imply this. I think, therefore, that he refers to the interpol- 
ated letter. 


In concluding I would say that few things are much more dangerous to the 
authority of the Universal Church than the teaching of some Romanists in 
modern times to the effect that even an Ecumenical Synod can be so mistaken 
as to facis as to base its doctrinal decisions as to what has been held always, 
everywhere and by all, on a spurious document, a Atstoric lie; even as in this 
case, according to the author of the Monztum above mentioned, on a writing of 
a base and wild Synousiast heretic, Timothy. For, of course, if they can be 
mistaken as to the stream, they can as to what they derive from it. If they can 
lay down arotten foundation, of course what they build on it must fall. And if 
they can err as to ove fact, they can err as to every fact, and so the foundations 
of all their Decisions may be assaulted and their Decisions with them. But such 
criticism and faulting of the knowledge and wisdom of the many Bishops and 
Scholars at Ephesus, and in the other Five Ecumenical Synods has no warrant 
norreason. For none of the Six Ecumenical Synods ever quoted a spurious 
document as an authoritative basis for a genuine Decision on faith. But the 
image-worshipping and creature-invoking Conventicle at Nicaea in A. D. 787, 
under Tarasius of the most frightful and God-cursed death, did base its Decisions 
in favor of those sins on spurious documents and on late documents which con- 
travene the earlier Universal faith, and these facts are acknowledged toa greater 
or less extent even by Romanists themselves, and by at least one Greek, Conto- 
gonis. And the fact that it used such things as bases for its Decisions brands 
those Decisions as heretical and null and void. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 427 


xat Adyos) and not a man taken by God in order that he might 


And furthermore, we must remember that the quoting of one document of a 
Father and the approving of it as Orthodox does not necessarily imply an ap- 
proving of all his other writings as Orthodox. Indeed in the case of any West- 
ern that could not be, for the simple reason that his writings were in Latin alone 
and nearly all of them untranslated into Greek, and hence nearly all of them 
were utterly unknown to the Greek-speaking Bishops of the Six Synods, and 
they constituted the great majority of all who were present, indeed almost 
the whole. There were at Ephesus, for instance, only two Bishops from Latin 
speaking Christendom, both sent by Rome. Carthage, the only other Western 
See represented, had, in her distress from invasion, sent only a deacon. 


So the error ascribed justly or unjustly by Keble the Nestorianizer and 
‘others to Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo on the Eucharist, of believing 
in a real presence of Christ’s humanity there, and of its worship there, was not 
approved by the Third Council merely because they approved certain passages 
from Ambrose. For in approving St. Cyril’s necessarily implied condemnation 
of it, they condemned it. 


Moreover we must not infer because an Ecumenical Council receives and 
accepts with honor a letter of any bishop of Rome, that it accepts any claim of 
that see to jurisdiction outside of Italy, as, for instance, the attempts of a Bishop 
of Rome like Celestine I. to secure Appellate JurisdiGtion over Carthage and its 
Patriarchate, as we now say, of Latin Africa, and thus to deprive the North Afri- 
cans of the rights guaranteed them by the Canons of the First Ecumenical Coun- 
cil; and the wrong and usurping and tyrannous action of his successor Leo I. in 
inducing the Emperor Valentinian III. to rob the Gauls in the same way. That 
claim to Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa the North African Church stoutly re- 
sisted, as is shown by the writer in a series of articles on that subject in the 
Church Journal, a weekly of New York City, for 1870. That defence was em- 
bodied by the Greeks in the Trullan Synod of A. D. 691 or 692 into their own 
‘Canon Law; as it ought to be into the Anglican. And if we find Celestine and 
Leo I. of the Roman Church using strong language in favor of the privileges of 
their see, we must remember that the Greeks in Canons III. of the Second Ecu- 
menical Synod and XXVIII. of the Fourth base whatever privileges it had on 
the fact of its being the capital city of the Roman Empire. And they passed 
Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth Council right against the wish of Leo’s legates, 
and hold to it to this hour. And we have seen that by the Canons of the first 
four Ecumenical Councils it has no jurisdiction out of Italy. And we know how 
well the British Church resisted any claim of Augustine and the Roman mission- 
aries for jurisdiction over them, and said that they owed no obedience to the 
Pope of Rome. See on that whole matter and a!l those matters Bingham’s 
Antig., Book IX. Chapter 1, sections 9, 10, 11 and 12, where he shows that 
Rome's ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not include all Italy even, and that the 
above specified local churches were free from him as they are still by the 
Canons, (the final appeal), of the first four Ecumenical Synods. 


428 Act I. of Ephesus. 


be another aside from Him. For the Son of God did not take 


I would say in passing that the unmanly and vicious Valentinian III. the 
unworthy tool of Leo I. Bishop of Rome, in trampling under foot the Ecumeni- 
cal Canons, murdered Aetius, his deliverer, and his friends, and came to a 
wretched end at last, for he was assassinated for his mean rape on the chaste 
wife of Maximus. See the account of that event and his worthless character in 
Gibbon’s Rome, chapter xxxv., (pages 3I-40, vol. IV. of Bohn’s edition). And 
a writer there justly blames Leo for his violation of the rights of other churches. 
to establish the supremacy of his own local Roman Church. And he uses the 
following severe language of him which has a certain amount of truth in it: 


‘For fifteen years he [Leo I. Bishop of Rome] ruled with unbounded 
sway the weak mind of Valentinian III., yet never checked in him a vice, im- 
planted a virtue, nor stimulated one effort for the redemption of a sinking em- 
pire. He used his influence only to establish the supremacy of his Church, amd 
for this he obtained imperial edits, which are not less gustly than severely 
condemned by the above named writers, [Dupin, Hallam and Neander, cited 
just above]. Leo ranks foremost among the destroyers of the Roman empire 
and the exslavers of Europe.’? He certainly did much to violate the Canons of 
the whole Church and destroy the liberties under them of the Western Churches, 


Though in opposing Eutyches and his heresy, he did well for Orthodoxy, 
we must not make a god of him and conceal his tyrannous and grasping spirit, 
nor the great wrong which he did to the Westerns in crushing their church rights 
by imperial and secular power to make himself lord over them. In the East he 
failed to do that, as his successors always have and always will. 


(760) page 424. Johni., 14. The faith was not fully complete under the 
Patriarchs nor under the Law of Moses; but now is under Christ. It can receive 
no additions. All additions to it and all subtractions from it are accursed by 
God. See in proof Galat. i., 8, 9, and Rev. xxii., 18, 19. 


(761), page 424. Julius means that if the Man put on by the Word had been 
merely inwrought, that is, operated on, that is inspired by the Word through His 
Spirit there would not be any thing so unusual in that, for prophets and apostles. 
had been so inwrought and inspired by the same Holy Spirit. 

(762), page 424. Paul, Heb. ix., 14, says that “‘Christ * * * through 
the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God’’ the Father. 

(763) page 424. The note on the above in Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1055, 
1056, is as follows: I translate from the Latin: ‘‘So the Ms. Colbert has it, but 
the Vatican and the Bellov. have Maximinus. In another Maximianus is 
found. Maximus is set down as having been Bishop of Alexandria in the time 
of Felix I., on which account Vincent of Lerins, in citing these testimonies. 
again puts Felix before Julius,’? H/avdouin. The Greek, copied from this Act I. 
of Ephesus, is given in col. 156 of tome 5 of Migne’s /atrologia Latina, and is 
there ascribed to Felix I. According to the Notitia Historica in the same tome, 
he died a martyr for Christ in A. D. 274, or 275. The fact that his testimony is 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 429 


aian in order that that man might be another aside from Himself 


cited in the Act above after his successor Julius has puzzled some; but it should 
not, for the testimonies are not arranged in chronological order. In Migne’s 
edition this fragment 1s all that is preserved of the Epistle to which it belonged. 
It is there very unjnstly put under the head of ‘‘ doubd{ful,” though in a note in 
col. 155, tom. 5, id., it is stated that it is found in Act I. of Chalcedon, and in 
Cyril’s Apology for his Twelve Chapters Against the Orientals. There appears 
not to be any reason at all worth mentioning for branding it as doubtful. Two 
hundred Bishops, and the representatives of Rome present at the Council made 
no sign as to its being at all doubtful; and they should have known, for they 
lived near Felix’s time and were conversant with works since lost. We should 
be on our guard against such destructive and unfair so-called criticism. 


A few words more on two of the Epistles alleged to be Julius’. The Epistle 
of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as it stands in 
the “ Appendix’? to the writings of that Julius under the heading, “ Writings 
of Suspected Genutineness.’’ is certainly Monophysite. For it denies the expres- 
sion, ‘‘ Zwo Natures’ ot Christ, and uses language which scunds dubious; for 
speaking of some heretics it says that, 


“« They are impious if they bow to him whom they assert to be a servant and 
a creature, and tf they do not bow to Him who redeemed us by His own blood * 
* * * For those who assert Two Natures must as a necessary consequence 
bow to the one, but not bow to the other.’ The first sentence here is Cyrillian, 
but the condemnation of the doctrine of the Two Natures in the second which 
begins ‘‘ For those,” etc., is heretical. But the writer’s teaching that we may 
not give worship to Christ’s humanity is the dodtrine of Athanasius, and of 
Cyril, as is shown in notes 183 and 582 above. Is it not ratified as Ecumenical in 
Cyril’s Anathema VIII., approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and by 
Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod? The writer here, whoever he may have 
been, seems to have assumed the non-worshipability of Christ’s humanity 
as a basis admitted by all, or at least generally, and uses it as an argument 
against the doctrine of the Two Natures by assuming that it involves it; whereas, 
as is shown in notes 183 and 582 above, Athanasius and Cyril worshipped not 
Christ’s humanity, but God the Word within it, as within a temple: see above, 
pages 98, 99, Ιου, note. But to return to the alleged Epistle of Julius of Rome 
to Dionysius, and to the passage just Englished from it. I give the Greek. 


Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 8, col. 925, 926, 929: Appendix. Scripta 
Suspectie Fidet * * * Epistola Julii Episcopi Romani ad Dionysium Alex- 
andrinum Episcopum, ἀσεβοῦντες, av τε προσκυνῶσιν, dv λέγουσι δοῦλον καὶ κτιστὸν, ἄν 
TE μὴ προσκυνῶσι τὸν ἐξαγοράσαντα ἡμᾶς τῷ ἰδιῳ αἵματι * * * ’Ανάγκη γὰρ αὐτοὺς δύο 
λέγοντας φύσεις, τὴν μὲν μίαν προσκυνεῖν, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν μὴ προσκυνεῖν, etc. 

And again further on, the same document speaks of it as one of the results 
of the Orthodox do¢trine, as the writer deems, to worship the creature; a thing, 
by the way, which the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth show is neither a 
logical outcome of the Orthodox Two-Nature Doétrine nor a tolerated inference 


430 Act 7. of Ephesus: 


(764): but being perfect God He became a perfect man at the same 
time, by putting on flesh [taken] out of a Virgin. 


from it; but, instead, the deadly and therefore anathematized error of serving a 
creature, even the Man put on by God the Word. I quote this spurious letter: 

““7ὲ ts a necessity for those who assert Two Natures, to bow to the One and 
not to bow to the other,’’ (Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 931, note 1). 
The Apollinarian who wrote this letter means, that if we believe in two natures 
in the Son we must worship the Divine, because it is God and not worship the 
human, because it is a creature. This was a favorite argument of the Apollin- 
arians and their offshoots the Monophysites. And the author of a note in 
Migne’s edition of this spurious letter gives expressions from Eutyches the here- 
siarch and Apollinaris as follows: 


‘“Why ts 1t not an tmpious thing to hold one substance to be created ora 
servant, and to give it the same adoration as ts given to the Creator and Lord?’ 
(Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 931, note 1). 


2. “tis impossible for the same one to be adorable and not adorable, there- 
fore it 15 impossible for the same one to be God and Man; but [rather] ix the 
unity of the commixed Divine Nature infleshed (Migne’s Patrol. Latina, tom. 
8, col. 931, note 1). 


3. ‘“‘Ltts an impiety to assert that one and the same adoration belongs to 
both natures, that ts to the Nature of the Creator and to that of the creature, of 
God and of man. But there is only one adoration of Christ, and therefore in 
that one name 1s understood God and man. There are therefore not two Sub- 
stances, God and man, but one Substance, by composition with a human body,’’ 
Migne’s Patrol. Latina, tom. 8, col. 931, note 1). 


4. The author of the note just mentioned adds a fourth passage which is 
from Apollinaris, of whom he writes that it was his familiar argument, that is, 
against Orthodoxy. Itis as follows: ‘‘ lf the same one [Christ] zs an entire 
man and God, the pious mind, which does not adore the man indeed, but does 
adore the God, will be found to adore and not to adore the same one, which can 
not be; and the same man will not deem himself adorable, for he is not impious; 
but the God will know that He Himselfis adorable. But it is impossible for 
the same One to be adorable and not adorable. And therefore it ἐς impossible for 
the same one to be God and an entire man, but{on the contrary] 72 a sole united 
nature divine and infleshed,” (Migne’s Patrol. Latina, tom. 8, col. 932, note 1). 


(As to the word ‘‘entzve man,”’ in this last passage I would explain by say- 
ing that Apollinaris did not deem Christ’s humanity to be perfect, because he 
held that it lacks the rational soul, that is, the mind). 


The Romish creature-server who writes this note attempts to meet this 
Apollinarian and Eutychian argument by quoting some anonynious writer who 
had fallen into the abyss of the Nestorian creature-service and who shows it by 
contending for the worship of Christ’s humanity on the ground that it has been 
taken and united to the Word: a form of creature service condemned by the 
Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 481 
i naan na eee 
[PassaGE 9]. A Passage from Theophilus the most holy Bishop 

of Alexandria taken out of his Fifth Festal (765) Epistle: 


Then 5, the author quotes Valentinus, the head of the milder wing of the 
Apollinarian heretics as setting forth as his own what isnow the view of Apolli- 
narians and other Man-Servers: he is condemning the more radical wing of 
his fellow heretics, the Timotheans who held that the Divinity of Christ and 
what they thought He possessed of humanity had become one Substance, from 
which they were called Synousiasts, that is, Co-Sudbstancers. Valentinus writes 
against them as follows: 


““ Timotheus and Polemius his teacher and those who were their JSollowers 
were very ignorant of the fact that inasmuch as there is but one Person of God 
the Word and of the flesh made by God the Word, the bowing ἐς to be done to 
God who has put on flesh, the bowing is not to be done to the flesh: for the Word 
15 not bowed to on account of the flesh: but the flesh ἐς co-bowed to with the Word, 
asa garment and wrapping, as I have said before.” Then he anathematizes 
the Orthodox who did not hold to his Man-service, which he blasphemously 
terms ‘‘¢his true and apostolic and genuine faith.’ And then from Philip. iii., 
23, he misapplies the expression ‘‘dogs’’ and ‘‘ evil workers’ to the Orthodox: 
(See Migne’s Patrol. Latina, tom. 8, col. 932, note 1, where a Latin translation 
is found. I give the Greek original as in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 86, 
Fars Fosterior, col. 1957: Καὶ ὁ μακάριος δὲ ᾿Αθανάσιος, ὁ ἁγιώτατος ἐπίσκοπος ἡμῶν. 
ἔλεγεν ὡς ἐξ adov ἀναφανέντας τοὺς τολμήσαντας εἰπεῖν ὁμοούσιον τὸ ἐκ Μαρίας σῶμα TH 
θεότητι" πολὺ δὲ ἠγνόησαν Τιμόθεος, καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ Πολέμιος, καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι 
ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τῆς γενομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου 
πρὸς Θεὸν ἡ προσκύνησις σαρκωθέντα, οὐ πρὸς σάρκα ἡ προσκύνησις" οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ Λόγος διὰ τὴν 
σάρκα προσκυνεῖται, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ σὰρξ τῷ Λόγῳ συμπροσκυνεῖται, ὡς στολὴ καὶ περιβόλαιον, ὡς 
προεῖπον" ὅσοι οὖν τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ, καὶ τῇ ἀληθινῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ ταύτῃ, καὶ ἀπαραποιήτῳ 
πίστει μὴ στοιχῶσιν, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα. Βλέπετε οὖν τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας, 
βλέπετε τὴν κατατομῆν" ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομὴ οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες ἐν Χριστᾷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες). 


Further on, this writer under the name of Julius in this same letter to 
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, has the following which may mean Man-Wor- 
ship, or not: 


“ Christ confesses that as regards His flesh He bows to [that is ““ worships’’] 
the Father, when 76 says, We bow to [that is, ‘‘worship’’] what we know 
[John iv., 22] avd [yet] His Divinity ἐς not separated [from His flesh]. He zs 
bowed to as regards His Divinity, and in the bowing to His Divinity, His 
body 15 not separated from It, Nor do we separate His body for it is zmpossible, 
when we bow to [thatis, ‘when we worship”? His Divinity]. And His Divinity 
7s nol separated from the body which suffered, forit has been united to It.” The 
Greek of the last sentences seems corrupt. The punctuation of Migne, which I 
follow below, is also very faulty, (Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 935, 
Προσκυνεῖν ὁμολογεῖ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα τὸν Πάτερα λέγων, ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ἃ 
οἴδαμεν" καὶ ov χωρίζεται ἡ Θεότης. προσκυνεῖται κατὰ τὴν Θεότητα, καὶ ov χωρίζεται τὸ σῶμα 


432 Act 1. of Ephesus, 


For there exist even, now the remains of the miracles of that 


τῇ τῆς Θεότητος προσκυνήσει. Oite ἀφιστῶμεν τὸ σῶμα (ουδὲ yap δυνατὸν) ὅτε προσκυνοῦμεν 
TOU σῶματος τοῦ πεπονθότος, καὶ οὗ χωρίζεται ἡ Θεότης, ἥνωται γὰρ). 


According to the Orthodox of the VI. Synods, the true way tomeet all Man- 
Servers is to say with Cyril of Alexandria and the Third Synod and the Fifth 
that we worship in Christ the Word only, though we believe that He is within 
the temple of His own body. But nevertheless, we do not worship that body, 
because we must obey Christ’s words in Matt. iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8, to serve 
God alone, hence no creature. The alleged Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to 
Prosdocius, which is thought to be interpolated, may in the Greek of the pas- 
sage following be taken in a perfectly sound sense, making the change mentioned 
below, though the Latin of it does not so give it: I translate from the Greek: 


‘“‘Likewrse let him also be anathema who says that the flesh of the Saviour 
did not come out of Mary, but out of heaven, or who asserts that the creature 
and what was made outof things not existing, is [the] Uncreated by Nature, and 
says that His body is Divine by its union with the Uncreated God, and that τί 
worships both [Natures] as one uncreated God. 


Be not scandalized at His flesh and tts sufferings; but bow to Him bodilessly 
[I understand this to mean, do not bow to the body put on by the Word, but to 
God the Word alone. CHRystau], Who is bowed to as being with [or “‘with- 
in’’| His own body, as one and sole Son of God from eternity and to eternity.” 


But what the true original reading here wasI can not say, and therefore 
take no side in the matter. As it stands to-day it is heretical and Man-Serving 
and some other parts of the Epistle are also heretical. 


I append the Greek of the last passage above: 


Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 959; Epistola beati Julii Romae ad 
Prosdocium: Ὁμοίως ἀνάθεμα ἔστω καὶ ὁ τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Σωτῆρος μὴ λέγων ἐκ Μαρίας, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἢ ἄκτιστον φύσει τὴν κτίσιν καὶ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τῇ δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἄκτιστον Θεὸν ἑνώσει 
ὁ λέγων Θεϊκὸν τὸ σῶμα, καὶ προσκυνοῦν κατὰ τὸ συναμφότερον ὡς ἕνα ἄκτιστον Θεὸν, μακάριος 
ἔσται, Μὴ σκανδαλισθῇς ἐπὶ τῇ σαρκὶ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσιν αὐτοῦ: ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀσωμάτως κροσκύνει 
τὸν μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος προσκυνοῦμενον, ὡς ἕνα καὶ μόνον Yidv τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς 
αἰωνας. 


This will make an orthodox sense as above intimated by making προσκυνοῦν, 
προσκυνῶν, and by omitting μακάριος ἔσται, which looks somewhat like a copyist’s 
or editor’s error. But the text is hopelessly corrupt as it now is. 

But taken as it stands it will give a heretical sense by rendering the last part 
as follows: 


“Βα he will be blessed who says that His body will be Divine by its union 
with the Uncreated God, and that it worships both Natures as one Uncreated 
God.’’ But this rendering seems to be contradicted by what follows, that is the 
words, “Δ Bow to Him BODILESSLY,’’ that is, without bowing to His body. 
And it makes nosense. The Greek is untranslatable in places. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 433 


time (766). Let them not disbelieve that the power of God has 
strength tomakea Virgin bring forth. The Living Word of God came 
into her in order to be made in our likeness (767). For otherwise He 
could not have associated familiarly with us (768). In order that He 


And if we take προσκυνοῦν as a mistake or abbreviation (9) tor προσκυνοῦμενον 
then it will give a heretical Man-Serving sense as follows: 


“But he will be blessed who says that His body is Divine by its union with 
the uncreated God, and that it is bowed to for both as one uncreated God.’’ 


By ‘‘jor both” with this rendering may be meant that it is to be bowed to 
for the sake of God the Word who dwells in it as well as for its own sake as 
having become ‘‘ Divine by its Union with the Uncreated Word.” 


But this sense, like the last above, seems to be contradicted by the exhorta- 
tion not to bow to the body. 


The annotator on this passage in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 
959, 960, 961, 962, deems it the work ofan Apollinarian, but in order to cover up 
his own Romish idolatry he mistranslates a passage of Athanasius elsewhere to 
be given in this Set against Man-Service, to make it mean the contrary. It is 
Athanasius against Apollinaris, Book I. No. 6. 


(764), page 431. Greek asin Hardouin’s Concilia, tome I, col. 1404, πιστεύομεν 
εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου Μαρίας γεννηθέντα, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν 
ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀΐδιος Ὑἱὸς καὶ Λόγος, καὶ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ἀναληφθεὶς, ἵν’ ἕτερος ἢ παρ᾽ 
ἐκεῖνον. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπον ἀνέλαβεν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Tide, ἵνα 1] ἕτερος παῤ αὐτόν. 

It is not clear to me whether ἐκεῖνον means God the Word or the Man put 
on. The Latin asin the parallel column is: Credimus in Dominum nostrum 
Jesum Christum ex Virgine Maria natum, quod ipse est sempiternus Dei Filius 
et Verbum, non autem homo a Deo assumptus, ut alius sit ab illo. Neque enim 
hominem assumpsit Dei Filius, ut alius ab ipso exsistat. 


(765), page 431. That is the Fifth Paschal Epistle. The Latin translation 
in the parallel column in Coleti is “ ex quinta paschali Epistola.”” For Pask was. 
the great Festival of the Primitive Church, and the Paschal Epistles of the Bishop 
of Alexandria particularly were of much importance at this time, for he announced 
the date of Pask to much or most of the Christian World. See onthat under ask 
in the General Index to vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. The Greek of this place 
is found in col. 60 of tome 65 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca; but it is taken from 
the above Act I. of Ephesus, as is stated on the same page. Jerome translated 
certain of Theophilus’ Paschal Epistles. See this part mentioned and the place 
where those translations are found referred to in id., col. 53, 54. 


(766). It is probably not too much to say that neither in the age of 
Theophilus nor in any other have miracles ceased to be wrought by God in re- 
sponse to the prayers of those who invoked no other than He. I have known 
of well attested happy visions in death to such. They are common to correct 
the scepticism of this sceptical age. 


(767). Rom. viii, 3; Philip. i1., 7. 


484 Act 7. of Ephesus. 


might not take a body by pleasure and sleep as the rest of men have, 
He takes a body like ours out of a Virgin, is brought forth out of her 
and appears as a man like us, zz the form of the servant (769). But 
by His works He [the Word] shows that He is Maker and Lord of 
all, for He performs God’s works (770). 

[PASSAGE 10]. Another Passage from the same [Theophilus], 
taken out of the next following [that is the Sixth] Festal (771) Epistle: 

For as the best artificers display their own art not only in costly 
materials and are admired for so doing, but also often take cheap 
beeswax and clay which falls to pieces, and show forth the power 
and excellence of their own skill, and are much more praised for so. 
doing; so the Best Artificer of all, the Living and Active (772) Word 
of God, who adorned and arranged the Universe with the harmony 
of order, came to us not as having taken any costly material, that is, 
a heavenly body (773), but He shows the greatness of His own art in 
clay, for in restoring man formed out of clay, He Himself came forth 
out of a Virgin in a new and fit manner. And although the manner 
of His birth differed from ours, nevertheless He decided that He 
would not shun to put on our Likeness in all (774) things but without 
siz (775). For he was brought forth, was wrapped in swaddling 
clothes, was nursed (776), was a babe, lay in a manger, accepted and 
experienced the weakness of our nature on account of the aforesaid 
sins and causes. But while he was yet a babe He troubled at the 


(768), page 433. This follows from the fact that the Word is God (John i., 
I, 14) and that no man 272 the flesh can see God before that flesh is changed by 
resurrection or at Christ’s coming (I. Tim vi., 16; I. Cor. xv., 51; 52, Εἰς 

(769) ΒΕ ΠΡ ia 7. 

(770). John v., 19; x., 36-39; John ix., 4; John xiv., Io. 

(771). A Paschal Epistle ismeant. The margin has “‘.Sixth.’? The Greek 
of this is found also in tom. 65 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, col. 60. But itis. 
taken from the above place, as it states on the same page. 

(772). Or, ‘ Energetic,” or ‘‘ Inworking,” ἐνεργῆς. 

(773). This was the error of a wing ofthe Apollinarians, who contended. 
that the body of Christ had existed long before the Virgin and merely passed 
through her without taking flesh from her, as water passes through a canal or a. 
river, not deriving its waters from the canal or the channel of {με τίνοσ, but from 
sources above both. Some or all of them seem to have made that body 
eternal and, so, uncreated in order to avoid the charge of being servers of a crea- 
ture. They were called Synousiasts and Timotheans. But their utterances seem 
confused, naturally enough, because their premises were so absurd and contra-. 
dictory that their conclusions could not be otherwise than the same. 


(774). Or ‘‘ 22 all respeéts,’’ κατὰ πάντα. 
(775). “Heb. iv.) 15;\Heb. 11. 9-18, ΠΤ Cor. ν᾿ 21: 
(776). Or ‘‘ suckled,” τιθηνούμενος. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 435 


same time both the Enemy (777) and His phalanx, [by] drawing 


the Magians (778) to mind-change (779) and preparing t#iem to de- 
spise the King who had sent them. 


[PassaGE 11]. A Passage of Cyprian the most holy Bishop and 
Martyr, taken out of his Work (780) on Almsgiving: 

God’s good deeds, beloved brethren, are many and very great. 
By them the abundant and rich Man-lovingness of God the Father 
has wrought and ever works our salvation, for the Father sent the 
Son to safe-guard us and to make us alive, in order that He might 
renew us, and the Son Who was sent wished to become Son of Man 
(781) that He might make us Sons of God. He therefore humbled 
(782) Himself in order that He might regain a people who had been 
cast away (783). He was wounded in order that He might heal our 
wounds (784). He made Himself a slave (785), in order that He 
might lead us whoserve Him out of slavery into freedom (786). He 
endured death, in order that he might restore immortality to 
mortals (787). 


(777). That is, Satan. 


(778). This word is rendered ‘‘ wise men” in our Common Version. See 
the Greek of Matt. ii., 1, where μάγοι is found. 


(779). Greek, μετάνοιαν. The King referred to in the above sentence is 
Herod. 


(780). λόγου, rendered ‘‘tra¢tatu’’ in the corresponding column in Coleti’s 
Concilia. Its Latin title, col. 601, 602 in tome 4 οὗ Migne’s Fatrologia Latina, 
is, ‘‘ Liber de Opere et Eleemosynis.’’? The passage begins the book andis found 
in those columns and after. 


(781). Matt. viii., 20; Luke xix., 10; Adts vii., 56, and often, elsewhere in 
Holy Writ. See under ‘‘ M/an, son of,”’ in Cruden’s Concordance. 


(782). Philip. 1i., 8. 

(783). Luke i1., 32; Matt. iv , 14-17; John x., 16; Rom. ix., 22-27. 

(784). Isaiah liii., 5; Matt. x., 1; Mark iii., 15; Luke ix., 11; Luke iv., 18; 
I. Peter ii., 24; Matt. iv., 23, ets 

(785), Je bulip., 14, 5 6, 7: Jhe term here and there used generally means 
slave, though it is generally translated by ‘‘servant?,’’ etc., in our Common 
Version. 

(786). Rom. vili., 21; II. Cor. iii., 17; Galat. v., 1; James i. 25; John vii., 36; 
ΤΟΣ 1} 22,,-etc. 

(987).; ΤΠ ΄ Cors-v., 15; οι ν. 6; Rom. -x1v.,9; 1. Cor. xv., 3; I. Thess. ν΄, ΤῸ; 
Acts xx., 28, where occurs a case of the Economic attributing to God of the hu- 
man things of the Man put ou, in the words: ‘‘ Heed the Church of God which 
He hath purchased with His own blood.’? Were the bloodshedding which be-- 
longs to the human nature is Economically ascribed to God the Word Who is 
impassible, in order to preserve the pre-eminence of His dzvine nature in the 


156 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[PASSAGE 12]. An Explanation on Faith by Ambrose who 
was the most holy Bishop of the City of Milan (788). 


If they do not believe me let them believe the apostle who says, 
But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth Fis Son made out 
of (789) a woman, made under the Law(790). Hesays, “715 Son, not one 
of many [sons]; not a common son but 4715 Son. But when He 
says His Son, He signifies the peculiarity of the Eternal birth (τῆς 
ἀϊδίου γεννήσεως) (791) [of God the Word out of the Father]. He 
arranged it that that Son should be made out of a woman after that 
[Eternal Birth], in order that He might ascribe that dezxg made [out 
of a woman] not to His [the Word’s] Divinity, but to the body which 
was taken. He was made out of a woman so far as relates to the 
flesh which He took. He was made under the Law, so far as relates 
to His observance of the Law. For His most divine birth was before 
the Law: but His birth in flesh was after the Law [had been given 
on Sinai]. 


Union and to avoid that Man-Service which Cyril so pointedly condemns, and 
the Universal Synods with him. 


(788). Or, ‘‘thecity of the Milanese,” or, to coin a term, “ the city of the 
Milaners.’”? This passage is found in chapter 14 of that book. Seeit in col. 550 
of tom. 16 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. A remark there adds on it ‘‘Conc. Chal- 
cedon. ActI. in Baposit. Fid. Nic.” 


(789). γινόμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς, This ἐκ, out of literally, cuts up by the roots 
the Mennonite heresy and that of some Apollinarians, who denied that the body 
of the Word was derived from the Virgin Mary. It is queer how they could 
deny this very important fact when so many texts of the Old Testament say that 
the Saviour should be of the seed of Abraham, and of David, and when so much 
‘depends on these facts: For if the Redeemer be not of their seed, He can not be 
the Messiah that was prediftted. Hence the New Testament so much insists 
that He has this mark of proof. See for instance, Rom. i., 3; II. Tim. 11., 8; 
Galat, 111., 16; Heb.ii., 16, etc: 


(790). Galat. iv., 4. 


(791). This allusion to Eternal Birth is among the mere odzter diéia, that 
is, the things incidentally said, and can not be said to be a topic discussed by the 
Council. The passage is adduced not on that theme but on the topics of tne In- 
carnation and Economic Appropriation, which it favors. Indeed the Anathema 
at the end of the Nicene Creed curses all those who assert that the Son of God 
was not before He was born, that is, all who held that He was eternally begotten 
out of the Father. Some of the Alexandrian School and a few others however 
clung tothat error. The Six Councils go no farther than to teach that the Logos 
was ‘‘ born out of the Father before all the Worlds,’ as the Creed of the Second 
Synod words it. See on this the Anathema at the end of the Creed of the First 
Ecumenical Council, and under ‘‘ H/ernal Birth’ inthe General Index to Vol. 
I. of Nicaea in this Set. But one can see how much affected Ambrose was by 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 437 


[PASSAGE 13]. Another Passage from the same [Ambrose] taken 
out of his Second Book on Faith (792). 

Therefore let vain questions on words (ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων) cease and 
be silent, for the kingdom of God, as it is written, zs of in persuasion of 
men’s words, but in manifestation of power (793). Let us keep the 
distinction between the divinity and the flesh. [But] One Son of 
God speaks In BOTH NATURES for BOTH NATURES ARE IN Him (794), 
It is the Same One who speaks, and [yet] He does not always speak 


the opinion of the great Alexandrian, Athanasius, for the Alexandrian error of 
Eternal Birth. That view was originally confined to the Alexandrian School. 

See on that volume I. of Vicaea in this Set, Preface, pages ii. and iii.; and text. 
pages 83, 84 and 110. Athanasius went so far as to differ from the Creed of 
Nicaea not only on Eternal Birth, but also as to the action of that Council re- 
garding Meletius; see vol. I. of VVicaea in the places just mentioned, and on page 
I1I. Yet very often, even men who should have been wiser, have preferred the 
private opinion of a great but admittedly fallible man—like Athanasius for in- 
stance, and his local fallible Church, to a decision of the whole Church in an 
Ecumenical Council. Such a course, if persisted in, tends to undo the work of 
the Six World-Synods andtoendin anarchy. Wemust never follow any Father, 
however distinguished, against the clear decision of the Holy-Ghost-led Univer- 
sal Church East and West in the VI. Councils. 


The expression ‘‘ Azernal Son,” in a quotation from Felix above may mean 
Eternal Birth, but not necessarily so, because we often speak of the e¢ernal life 
of the righteous where we do not mean that they were from all eternity, but only 
that they will enjoy an eternal life which is not sealed to them till they are 
baptized and take the Lord’s Supper. If Felix means Eternal Birth he alone of 
all outside of the jurisdiction of Alexandria held that private opinion before 
Nicaea, A. D. 325. In all probability the Fathers of Ephesus did not take his 
words in that sense, for the common view of Nicaea was still general outside of 
Alexandria. ¢ernal Word in the context would guard the Son’s co-eternity 
with the Father. 


(792). This passage is found in chapter 9 of that Book 77. on Faith. See it 
in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom.‘16, col. 576, 571. I have translated it from 
Act I. of Ephesus. 


(jag). Iv Cor./11.;.4; 
(794). Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1057: φυλάξωμεν τὴν διαφορὰν τῆς Θεότητος καὶ 
της σαρκός" Hic ἐν ἑκατέρῳ λαλεῖ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Ὑἱὸς, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἑκατέρα φύσις ἐστίν, Ὁ 
Αὐτὸς λαλεῖ, καὶ οὐκ ἐν ἑνὶ πάντοτε διαλέγεται τρόπω. 
Ambrose means that it is God the Word alone Who speaks, though He has put 
on flesh. This conforms to the celebrated Dictum of Cyril, ‘‘ We bow to the 
Word [who is] wth [or ‘‘within”’] His fles/2,’’ but Cyril refused the expressions 
which speak of bowing to the Flesh with the Word. Notice this full and complete 
confession of the Two Natures in the Son in this Passage deemed so Orthodox 
by the Third Ecumenical Synod, that they use it as one of the bases for their 


458 Ad 7. Ὁ “Ephesus. 


in one way (795). Notice in Him now God’s glory; but now a 
man’s sufferings. For as God He teaches as to the things of God, 
because He is the Word: but as a Man He speaks the things of a 
man, because He was speaking in my substance. /7e zs the Living 
Bread (796), Who came down from heaven. ‘That Bread is the flesh, 
as He Himself also said: This bread which I will give ts my flesh 
(797). Thisis He who came down (798). This is He whom the 
Father sanétified and sent into the world (799). But that letter (800), 
itself does not teach us that His Divinity had need of being sanctified 
but that His flesh had such need. 


[PAssaAGE 14]. A Passage of Gregory the Great, (Sor) who was 
the most holy Bishop of Nazianzus (802). 


decision against Nestorius. And yet its leader, Cyril of Alexandria, and the 
Synod itself are accused, by those who should know better, of Monophysitism. 
So unfair and prejudiced is the world ! 


(795). That is, as he at once explains, He speaks at one time what pertains 
to His divine Nature, at another of what pertains to the humanity which He had 
put on, the sufferings of which He Economically claims for Himself, God 
the Word. 

(796). John vi., 50. 

(797). John vi., 51. 

(798). John vi., 50, 51, 58. 

(799). John x., 36. 


(800). Sometimes /etfer is opposed to the spiritual and deeper Christian 
sense of a thing, or to the Law as distinguished from the Gospel. Compare 
John vi., 63, and II. Cor. iii., 6; Rom. vii, 6. Ambrose seems to insinuate what 
is so often taught by the Fathers, namely that we should not take Christ’s words 
in John vi., about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the literal, cannibal 
sense, as the Jews did; and that even that letter of his utterance does not teach 
that God the Word needs sandtification. See note 606 above, pp. 261-276. 


(Sor). This title ‘‘Great’’ is much more fitly applied to this great opponent 
of creature-service, than it is to the later and somewhat erring Bishop of Rome, 
Gregory I., whom the Latins call Great and the Greeks the Dialogist, on account 
of his Dialogues. But Gregory of Nazianzus, or Nazianzum has been faulted, not 
without cause for his flowery and turgid oratory, in which he invokes poetically 
and not really a temple, angels, apostles, etc. See an example quoted in 
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia under his name. Probably some works 
ascribed to him however are not his and others may be interpolated. But his 
writings prove that he was strongly opposed to all invocation of any but God. 
Bishop Ridley in his farewell to his college addresses walks or trees, etc., in the 
same poetic manner. This use of the figures of Rhetoric known as Ecphonesis, 
Personification, Vision, and Apostrophe (see Gould Brown’s English Grammar, 
Prosody, Figures of Rhetoric), should be avoided where it is likely to be mis- 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 439 


Let not the men (803) deceive nor be deceived by admitting a 
man without a mind as the Lord’s Man (804), as they say, but, on 
the contrary, let them admit our Lord and God. For we do not 
separate the Man from the Divinity [of the Word]; but we hold to 


understood by the unlearned, and to lead them into the great sin of invoking 
created persons or any thing but God, or to lead them to invoke Him through 
material things or created persons. 


(802). This is from Gregory’s Epistle I. to Cledonius. Compare Coleti 
tom. 4, col. 1142. It is against Apollinaris. See it in Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca, tome 37, col. 177 and after. The Apollinarians denied Christ a human 
mind, and hence denied that the Word had put on a perfect man, though their 
error is impliedly condemned by the natural sense of the clause of the Creed of 
the First Synod of the whole Church, and ofthat ofthe Second Synod also, which 
asserts that He “put on a man,’’ that is, not a part of aman, but a whole man. 
When we consider how later heresies like Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and 
Monophysitism, are anticipatively condemned by the natural sense of those two 
Ecumenical Creeds we can readily understand how the Fourth Ecumenical 
Synod could say of their Faith that it should be sufficient for the full acknowl- 
edgment and confirmation of the true religion; for it teaches completely the per- 

Sect doctrine concerning the Father,the Son and the Holy Spirit,and fully explains 

the Incarnation of the Lord to those who receive tt faithfully.’’ But it then goes 
on, in effect, to state that it defines further on account of its perversion by the 
heretics of the different sects aforesaid. See it in Hanmond’s Canons of the 
Church, pp. 95, 96, etc., N. Y. edition. 


The above is the longest of the passages quoted from the Twelve Fathers in 
this Act I. of Ephesus. As we show in treating of the opinions of Gregory of 
Nazianzus in another part of this Set, his Epistle I. to Cledonius, from which 
the above extract is taken, is divided by him into two parts; the first, which con- 
tains his profession of faith against all Anti-Inman heresies generally, put forth 
by him to remove all suspicion of his Orthodoxy; and a second which is diretted 
specifically and in detail against Apollinaris and his peculiar errors. The above 
extract is from the first part; and was evidently chosen by the Synod as one of 
the normal utterances of Orthodoxy to guide its own decisions, because of its 
appositeness against them and more especially because of its denunciation of 
those errors on the Incarnation which were circulated in Gregory’s time not only 
by his opponent Apollinaris, but also those set forth by Diodore of Tarsus and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and afterwards defended before the whole world by 
Nestorius against Cyril of Alexandria and the Third Ecumenical Council, 
Gregory’s references to Nestorian heresy are only incidental, but yet are appo- 
site. Heis the eighth of the Twelve Fathersquoted above. The original is 
found in Coleti’s Concilia, tome 3, col. 1057. 


(803). That is the Apollinarians just mentioned by Gregory in the preced- 
ing part of the above Epistle I. to Cledonius. 


(804). Or ‘‘the Lordly Man.’’ 


440 Act I..of Ephesus. 


and proclaim [only] One and the Same; Who at first indeed was not 
a Man, but was God and Sole Son and before the worlds, [and] was 
unmingled with a body (805) and unmingled with those things which 
belong to a body whatsoever they are, but at last was alsoa Man 
taken (806) for our salvation, passible in flesh, impassible in Divinity, 
circumscribed in body, uncircumscribed in Spirit (807); the Same 
One is earthly and Heavenly, visible and Invisible, contained and 
Uncontained, that the whole man who had fallen under [the sway of] 
sin, might be remoulded and restored by one who is A WHOLE MAN 
and at the same time God (808). 

If any one does not admit Mary to have been Bringer-Forth-of- 
God, he is an alien to the Divinity (809). 

If any one says that [Christ’s humanity] ran through the Virgin 
as through a pipe (810) but was not thoroughly formed in her, di- 
vinely and humanly at the same time; divinely indeed because with- 
out a man, but humanly by the law of pregnancy and of being 
brought forth [out of her], let him be anathema. 

If any one says that the Man had been formed and that then 


(805). ἀμιγῆ σώματος καὶ τῶν ὅσα σώματος. Gregory shows that he does not be- 
lieve in any mingling of the Substance of God the Word in the sense of confu- 
ston, or indeed in any other sense than the indwelling of God the Word in the 
Man put on by Him. Bunt some of the ancients, even Cyril of Alexandria him- 
self, used terms which might be perverted from thesense of “zon in which they 
took them to that of confusion. But after the rise of the Apollinarian, the Nes- 
torian and the Monophysite heresies the teachers of the Church were more 
exact in the use of language of that kind, and avoided words which those 
heretics might pervert. 

(806). Greek, ἄνθρωπον προσληφθέντα. 

(807). Πνεύματι. As God is aSpirit, (John iv., 24), therefore we some times 
find the ancients using ‘‘.Spzr7?,’’ as here, for His divinity. See Sophocles” 
Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods under πνεῦμα, 3. 


(808). Notice Gregory’s Confession here of the perfect humanity of Christ, 
for which he contended against the Man-Serving Apollinarians. This language 
smites also the Monothelites, for they denied that Christ is a whole man, by 
denying him a human will, which is a part of a whole man; pages 103-105 above, 
note, and pages 429-433; note. 

(809). ‘‘He ts an alien to the divinity”’ by denying His real Incarnation, 
a denial which in the case of the Apollinarians and the Nestorians led to the 
worship of Christ’s humanity, and so to creature-service. 

(810). This also was an error of Apollinarian heretics. For they denied, 
like some of the Mennonites, that God the Word took flesh from the Substance 
of the Virgin, but asserted that the flesh which He had, existed long before her, 
and merely passed through her as water passes through a pipe. The comparison 
holds as to the source. For they held that as the water which flows through a 
pipe does not derive its origin from the pipe, but outside of it, so the flesh of 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 441 


God put him on (811), be he condemned: for that is not a bringing 
forth of God [out of a woman] but an avoiding of being brought 
forth (812). 

If any one introduces two Sons, one indeed the Son Who came 
out of the God and Father, and the second him who came out of the 
mother, but does not [confess] One and the Same (813) Son, let him 
also lose the adoption to sonship promised to those who believe cor- 
rectly. For THERE ARE Two NATURES (814), God, and a Man be- 
cause heis both a soul and a body (815). But there are not two 
Sons nor two Gods. Nor are there two men here, even though 
Paul so calls the internal part and the external part of man 
(816). And, seeing it behooves me to speak briefly, The two 
things [divinity and humanity] of which the Saviour is [composed] 
are different from each other, for the visible is certainly not the same 
thing as the Invisible, and that which is Independent of Time (817) 
is surely not the same thing as that which is subject to [the limita- 
tions of ] time (818). But those two things [Divinity and humanity] 
are not two different Persons. Godforbid! For both are one in the 
union (819), for God has put on a man, and a man has been made 
godly, or howsoever any one may name it (820). We say two 


Christ did not derive its origin from her but from outside of her. As to the con- 
sequences of this error see note 789 above. 


(S11). This was.an error of the Nestorians, only that the ‘‘then’’ with 
them would not mean till, it might be, his baptism or later. Consequently ac- 
cording to them, the Word’s divine Substance was not in the Virgin’s womb at 
all, but only His sanctifying grace by His Holy Spirit, and so the indwelling 
was zot of God the Word’s Substance but was relative only: that is, God the 
Word dwelt in that man by the Holy Spirit only, which is related to Him as 
being His Spirit. 

(812). See last note above. 

(813). That is, God the Word who is in flesh and in a man. 

(814). Greek, φύσεις μὲν yap δύο. See on this matter the note above. 

(815). Gregory shows elsewhere that Christ has also a mind. He brings 
out this fact in his arguing against the Apollinarians who denied it. Indeed 
among the ancients the term ‘‘ soul’’ (ψυχῆ) is often used to include the animal 
soul, which we ordinarily call the soul; and the intelle€tual soul, which we call 
the mind. 

(816). Paul’s division of man, is into three parts, spirit, that is, mind, soul, 
and body. See I. Thess. v., 23. The ancients very often, aye, generally name 
an apostle, as here, without the title sazzz. Some ignorant clerics suppose that 
they must always use it and that it is a sign of Puritanism not to do so. But the 
reference above seems to be to II. Cor. iv., 16. 

(817). That is, God the Eternal Word. 


(818). That is, the Man born of the Virgin in time. 
(819). Or, ‘‘ 22 the blending.’ Greek, τῇ συγκράσει, Θεοῦ μὲν ἐνανθρωπήσαντος, 


.442 Act I, of Ephesus. 


different things [in the Personal union of the Son] in contradistinc- 
tion to the way it is in regard to the Trinity. There we say that 
there are different Persons, in order that we may not mingle and 
confound the Subsistences (821): but we do not say that there are 
different things there, for the Three Persons are One and the Same 
Thing in Their Divinity. 

If any one says that the Son who came out of God operated in 
the Man by grace, as He did in the Prophets, but that His [the 
Word's] Substance was not co-joined to him [the Man] and united 
to him (822), let him be empty of the better operation and be full 
of the operation of the Adversary (823). 

If any one does not bow tothe Crucified [God the Word] let 
him pe anathema, and take his place in the ranks of the murderers 
of God, (824), (825). 


ἀνθρώπου δὲ θεωθέντος, ἢ ὅπως ἂν τις ὀνομάσειε, See on the term συγκράσει a note above. 
Θεοθέντος may be taken in the sense of ‘‘fi/led with God,” that is, with God the 
Word who dwelt in him. 


(820). See the last note for the Greek. 


(821). Greek, iva μὴ τὰς ὑποστάσεις ovyxéwper, that is, “the Persons,’ for ὑπόστασις 
is often used as here for Person, for as each Person existsseparately now as being 
Eternal God He can be called a Person and a Subsistence, that is, a Being. And 
so in that sense many of the ancients spoke of Three Sudbsistences, that is Three 
Beings: and that is perfectly accordant with the literal meaning of the Greek 
word ὑπόστασις. Whereas others, for instancein the Nicene Creed, used ὑπόστασις 
in the sense of Subsistence, Existence and Being ,to designate the one kind of Sz6- 
stance and Existence of the whole Trinity, for there the Anathema at the end of 
that Creed curses those who say that the Son of God, that is, the Logos, ‘‘ zs of an- 
other Subsistence or Substance’? (ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας) than the Father, for the 
Substance of both and of the Spirit is the same, and they are all co-eternal. 
Though both of those uses of ὑπόστασις are in strict accordance with its meaning, 
some at first misunderstood and taking ὑπόστασις in the sense of being were 
scandalized at the idea of speaking of Three Beings, where there is only One 
Being in Three Persons, that is, God, consisting of the Father, His Consubstan- 
tial Word, and His Consubstantial Spirit. Yet as time wore on all saw that each 
Person is a Being, and that as the Three separate Persons are all parts of One 
Being, so the Three separate Beings are but parts of One Being, God, and all co- 
eternal and consubstantial. 


(822). This was precisely the error of the Nestorians. 


(823). The better operation is, of course, the operation of the Holy Ghost. 
The contrary operation is that of the Adversary, the Devil. 


(824). Although the ordinary rule for a Christian is to ‘‘dless, and curse 
not,’? as Paul commands (Rom. xii., 14), nevertheless there is a cursing by a 
properly qualified authority such as an Apostle, or by the whole Christian Apos- 


Réading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 443 


If any one says that the Son who came out of God was perfected 
by works, or that after his being dipped (826), or after His resur- 


tolate met in Ecumenical Synod, or in local Synod. Instances of such cursing 
by an individual Apostle is Peter’s curse on Simon Magus in Acts vili., 20-24; 
Paul’s on all pervertérs of the Gospel and on all preachers of new Gospels in 
Galatians i., 8, 9; and on all who love not the Lord Jesus Christ, in I. Corinthians 
xvi., 22. In later times individual bishops following their example, have cursed 
heretics, as for instance, Gregory here curses the Apollinarians. 


Instances of cursing by the whole Christian Apostolate are 1, the Anathema 
at the end of the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod; 2, the first Canon of the 
Second Synod, not to speak of its seventh; 3, the seventh Canon of the Third 
Ecumenical Synod against Man-Servers and other perverters of the Faith of the 
Church; 4, the Anathema in the Definition of the Fourth Synod against the 
Monophysites and other heretics; 5, the Definition of the Fifth Synod and its 
Anathemas against Nestorian Man-Servers, and others; 6, the Definition of 
the Sixth Synod of the whole Church against the Monothelites and others. 


In all these instances the Apostle, or the whole Apostolate in Synod assem- 
bled do not profess to utter their own curse, but God’s antecedently proclaimed 
by the Holy Ghost through Paul in Galatians i., 8, 9, which they merely apply 
in God’s name both to warn the heretic of his own damnation if he persists in his 
creature-service or other error, and to warn and guard the Christian people 
against the soul destroying character of the error anathematized. 


An instance of cursing by a Zocal Synod is fonnd in the Epistle of Cyril of 
Alexandria and of the Synod of the Egyptian Diocese which has the Twelve 
Anathemas against Nestorian Man-Service, denial of the Incarnation, and 
other errors. 

Of course it should be added that while every Bishop and every local Synod 
should anathematize every error, nevertheless this must always be done against 
what is contrary to the Scriptures and to that doctrine, discipline and rite which 
were from the beginning: otherwise the curser damns his own soul. The cursings 
by all Arian bishops, all Macedonian prelates, and those of the Man-Serving 
Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Image-Worshippers, and Creature In- 
vokers, and all others who have opposed the Scriptures and primitive and once 
universal doctrine, discipline, rite and custom, have returned on their own 
heads to curse them in this world and in that which is to come. The Third 
Ecumenical Synod forbids us to regard such men as Christian bishops, but as 
false apostles (compare Rey. ii., 2) and to have nothing to do with them but to 
shun them. 

But there is one blessed fact in this connection, and it is that all the ana- 
thematizing of the Universal Church in its Six Councils is against heretics and 
creature-servers and not against the Orthodox. 

(825). Gregory in this whole passage Economically attributes, like Atha- 
nasius and Cyril, the sufferings of the Man put on to the Word: hence like them 
he would say that the Word was crucified. And so the worship here by bowing 


444 Act I of Ephesus. 


rection from the dead He was deemed worthy of adoption to Sonship, 
like the spurious and fictitious Sons [of Jove] whom Greeks [that is, 
‘‘the heathen ’’] bring in, let him be anathema. For that which 
has a beginning, or progresses and improves, or is made complete is 
ποῖ God, even though it be so termed, on account of its increase 
ΠΕ ον little (827). 


[PassaGE 15]. A passage of Basil, who was the most holy Bishop 
of Cesarea in the First Cappadocia (828), 


For heaven and earth, and the countless spaces (829) of the 


would be given to the Word alone, but as w7¢h, that is, 22: flesh, as He and they 
explain in other places, in effect. Cyril of Alexandria in the last of his XII. 
Anathemas, and the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Three Ecumenical Synods 
after it which approved that and the rest of his XII, Anathemas, and the Fifth 
Ecumenical in its Fifth and Ninth Anathemas, all teach, 1, that God the Word 
was crucified: 

But, 2, the Third Ecumenical in approving Anathema VIII. of Cyril of 
Alexandria; and the Fifth in its Anathema IX., in effect anathematize him who 
worships in the crucified any thing more than God the Word: that is, they an- 
athematize any one who worships His humanity; for it is a creature, and, hence, 
to worship it would of course be creature service. This is one view, on which 
see notes 183 and 582 above. Another is that both Natures of the Son may be 
worshipped: in other words that it is not against Matt. iv., 10, is worship a crea- 
ture with God the Word. See those notes. 


Gregory of Nazianzus as above anathematizes him who denies that the 
Word was crucified, and who refuses to worship Him as in the crucified human- 
ity then and now. In another passage, that is, in his Discourse XLV. which is 
on the Holy Pask, or Easter, section 24, Gregory, addressing different classes of 
persons in oratorical and stilted style, nevertheless brings out the idea that God 
the Word hung on the cross: ‘‘// thou art’’ says he ‘‘ Simon the Cyrenian take 
up the cross and follow [Him]; if like the thief thou art crucified with Him, 
candidly recognize [thy] God * * * and suspended [on the cross] as thou 
art, worship (προσκύνησον) Him who hung on the cross for thee.’’ This passage 
is in col. 656, tome 36 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 


(826). That is, after his baptism, which was then performed by trine im- 
mersion as Bingham shows. 

(827). Or, “ids gradual increase.’ Although Gregory’s language here is 
aimed at the Apollinarians, nevertheless it is so apposite to the Nestorians that 
one might suppose, if he did not know the author or the date of this writing, 
that it was aimed at the Nestorians. Those errors are condemned and with 
them the Nestorian relative worship of Christ’s humanity in Anathema XII. of 
the Fifth Ecumenical Council. 


(828). This passage is from Basil’s work ov the Holy Spirit, chapter8. It 
is found also in col. 100, tome 32, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 
(829). Or. ‘‘countless things.’’ This place as in Coleti Cozc., tom. 3, col. 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 445, 


seas, and the things which live in the waters, and the animals on the 
dry land, and plants, and stars, and the air,and the seasons of the year, 
and the varied arrangement and adorning of the Universe, do not 
together display so much excellence of might as the boundless God 
(830) was able to display when, by means of flesh assumed, He 
without any suffering, wrestled with death in order that He might. 
by His own suffering (831) grant us the favor of freedom from 
suffering (832). 

[PassaGE 16]. A Passage of Gregory the most holy Bishop of 
Nyssa (833). 

Let this mind bein you saith he, which was also in Anointed Jesus, 
Who being in God's form (834) thought tt not robbery to be equal with 
God, but made Himself of no reputation (835) having taken the form of 
the servant (836), (837). What greater poverty can be asserted of 
God than that He has taken the form of the servant? What greater 
lowliness can be asserted of the King of all than that He voluntarily 
came to share our poor nature? (838). The King of Kings and the 
Lord of Lords (839) put on the form of the servant! The Judge of 


1060, is τὰ μυρία τῶν πελάγων. Butin column Ioo of tome 32 of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca it reads τὰ μεγέθη τῶν πελαγῶν: μεγέθη is found in Coleti’s margin here. 

(830). Greek, τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ἀχώρητον, which the Latin in Mansi’s Coxcilza, 
tome 4, col. 1194, renders, immensum illum infinitumque Deum. 


(831). The wrestling of the Word by His flesh with death, refers to God the 
Word’s having put on flesh, and hence teaches the doctrine of His Incarnation, 
and agrees with Cyril. The Economic attributing ofthe sufferings of the passi- 
ble man put on to the impassible God the Word Who put him on, agrees withthe 
do¢trine of Cyril and Athanasius on that subject. Hence this passage is adduced 
before the Council in the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius as sustaining 
the former and making against the latter. 


(832). Jo Peter 11:. 22: Rev.xxi.; 4, ete: 

(833). This is from Gregory’s First Oration on the Beatitudes. Itis in 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tom. 44, col. 1201. 

(834). Thatis, in God’s body. That God has a body is taught in many 
passages of the Old Testament and the New, and was the faith of the most an- 
cient Christians. But, as Tertullian teaches, it is a body of Spirit. 

(835). Literally ‘‘emptied Himself,” that is, abased himself, that is, by 
taking on the form of a slave, (δούλου) as it is literally. Notice that here and in 
passages following Gregory ascribes the sufferings of the Man put on to God the 
Word, that is, Economically only. 

(836). The literal meaning is slave. 

($37).. Philip.,11., 5; 6, 7. 

(838). Heb. ii., 9-18. 

(839). Rev. xvii., 14. 


440 Act I. of Ephesus. 


all (840) became subject to pay tribute and tax to earthly rulers 
(841). The Lord of the Creation is brought down into a cave (842). 
He who held every thing in His hand (843), finds no place in the 
inn (844), but He is thrust aside in a manger belonging to the irra- 
tional animals. The Pure and Undefiled admits the meanness of 
human nature, and having experienced all our poverty, goes forward 
to the enduring of death (845). See the measure of His voluntary 
poverty! The Life (846) tastes death! The Judge [of all] is led to 
the judgment of an earthly tribunal! The Lord of the life of exis- 
tences, is subjected to the sentence of an [earthly] Judge! The 
King of all the supramundane power does not thrust away the hands 
of the executioners! Let the measure of thy humility have respect 
to that example, (847). 

[Passack 17]. A Passage of Atticus, Bishop of Constanti- 
nople (848). 

To-day the Anointed One Who is also Lord, underwent His 
birth [in the flesh], because of His love for man. For He existed 
before as regards the birth of divine dignity (849). 

[PASSAGE 18]. Zhen he [Atticus] adds to those words what here 
follows (850). 

The Man-Loving Word is made of no reputation (δ 5.1), though 


(840). John v., 22, 27, and after; Acts xvii. 31; Matt. xxv., 31-46, inclusive. 

(841). Matt. xvii., 24-27. 

(842). The idea from ancient times seems to have been that Christ was laid 
in acave. A tomb hewn in the rock is such. They are found in the East now. 

(843). John i., 3; John iii., 35; Matt. xi., 27; John xvi., 15> 1. ΟΣ ν᾽ 
Colri:, 175 Heb? τ 2: 

(844). Luke ii., 7. 

(845). Philip. 11., 8. Noteworthy is the fact that Paul ascribes the death 
Economically to Him who before He took the form of the slave was in God’s 
form. And all these passages ascribe the human things of the Man put on to 
the Word. 

(846). John xiv., 6. 

(847). Notice how the human things are here ascribed Economically to the 
Word. 

(848). This passage is not found in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tom. 65, 
col. 637-652, where remains of Atticus are given. It seems to have escaped the 
editor ofthat tome. I have given it from Act I. of Ephesus as in duty bound. 

(849). That is, His birth ‘‘ before all the worlds’’ out of God the Father. 

(850). This passage is not found in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tom. 65, col. 
637-652. It also seems to have escaped its editor’s observation. 

(S51) ev Phir tia: 


Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 447 


so far as His [divine] Nature is concerned He is not made of no re- 
putation. For He made Himself of no reputation, having taken 
a servant's form (852). He whois without flesh takes on flesh for 
thee! Zhe Word was made flesh (853). He Who by reason of the 
incorporealness of His Nature is not subject to touch, is touched ! 
He Who is without beginning becomes subject to a bodily beginning, 
(854). The perfect One grows (855)! ‘The Unchanging One makes. 
progress (856)! He Who was rich (857) is brought forth in an inn. 
He Who covereth the heaven with clouds (858) is wrapped in 

swaddling clothes (859). The King is laid in a manger. 3 

[PassaGE 19]. Another Passage likewise from the same [ Atticus, 
Bishop of Constantinople] (860). 

If the Inman of the Sole-Born, and His being brought forth by a 
Virgin and His communion with [human] sufferings (861) and [His] 
cross, and death and resurrection (862), separate any one from us, let 
him learn and know that those things have to do with the world’s 
salvation; and let him not deem them unworthy of the Good and 
Mighty God’s love for man. For if it was disgraceful for God to 
dwell in the Virgin, it was more disgraceful before all that to make 
her. Butif He incurred no ignominy by making her, He did not 
judge it to be a thing deserving of shame to dwell in her. And if it 
is an evil thing to suffer, how great a thing is it to relieve [man- 
kind] from suffering! Wherefore He who is immortal died (863) 


(852). Philip. 11., 7. 

(353). John 1., 14. 

(854). That is, the body which He, God the Word, put on, had a beginning 
in the womb of the Virgin Mary. 

(855). That is, the body put on by God the Word grows; see Luke ii., 52. 

(856). Thatis, progresses in age and stature in his humanity, from a babe 
to a man; not from sinfulness to sinlessness as the Nestorians said, for His 
human nature was always sinless. 

(857). II. Cor. viii., 9. 

(858). Psalm cxlvii., 8. 

(859). Luke i1., 7, 12. 

(860). This is not found in Migne’s Fatrologia Graeca, tom. 65, col. 637- 
652, where remains of Atticus are given. It also seems to have escaped the 
editor’s notice. 

(861). Or ‘‘His sharing of [human] sufferings.” 

(862). A Latin translation of this passage in Act I. of Chalcedon has ‘‘ cross 
and suffering and death,’’ instead of ‘‘ cross and death and resurreétion.”’ 

(863). Philip. ii, 8, where Paul Economically ascribes the death of the 
Man put on tothe divine Word who had put him on. For He says, that He 
“being in Goa’s form, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” and yet 


448 Act I. of Ephesus. 


in order that He might kill death (864), and rose up as a Prince to 
procure our resurrection. And He received all those things (865) 
not in the Nature of [His] Divinity but in the flesh which He put 
on, dwelling in it on the one hand in the inviolabilities of His own 
unsufferingness (866), and, on the other, suffering and enduring 
all those things [in the flesh which He put on], in order that He 
might become both Leader and Law-giver of the best polity (867). 


[PassaGk 20]. A Passage of Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium 
(868). 

For since the Same One is King and God, and tasted death for 
the sake of the Economy of the Suffering, the gifts of the mysteries 
are riddles (869). The Magians offer gold, knowing Him to be King. 
They offer frankincense, for they know that they are offering to God 
(870). ‘They offer myrrh on account of the death in the mystery of 
the suffering. 

[PASSAGE 21], (871). Another Passage likewise from the same 
[Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium]. 

For if He had not been born in flesh, thou hadst not been re- 
born spiritually (872). Andif He had not borne and endured the 
form of the servant (873) thou hadst not gained the glory of adoption 


“took upon Him the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men. And 
being found in fashionas a Man He humbled Himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross.’’ ‘This is one of the plainest instances in 
the Scriptures of the ascribing Economically the sufferings of the Man put on 
and his human things to Godthe Word. Another instance is Acts xx., 28, where 
the man’s blood is called God’s blood. 


(S64). stim. i), ro: Heb: 15 11: Rev. τσὶ ἢ: 

(865). That is, the human sufferings. 

(866). That is, in ‘‘ Hzs own tmpasstbility.”’ 

(867). That is, of Christianity. 

(868). This is not found in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, so far at least as I 


have seen. Amphilochius wrote much, but it has, most of it, been lost. See on 
his writings Sevestre’s Diftionnatre de Patrologie, article, ‘“Amphilogue.”’ 

(869). αἰνίγματα. 

(870). Amphilochius here implies that the offering of incense as an act of 
religious service is prerogative to God. This is in strict accordance with Matt. 
iv., 10; Luke iv., 8. 

(871). This is not found in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, so far at least as I 
have seen. See the third note back. 


(872). Thatis, ‘“‘outofthe water and of the Spirit,’ according to Christ in 
John iii., 5. Compare ‘‘bath of rebirth and of the Holy Ghost’s renewing,” in 
ites 111: 5: 

(872). Philip: 11:. 7: 


Réading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 449 


en ---------“ --ὀἧ ---- ---ΟΘ-Ὁ----- -ἶ»---ἷε------ςς------ --Ὀ ----- 


to Sonship (874). For the Heavenly One descended upon earth, that 
thou who art upon earth mayst be carried up into heaven. There- 
fore the Anointed One made Himself of no reputation (875), that we 
all might receive of His fulness (876). By His death immortality 
came to thee (877). The sufferings of the Master became the ser- 
vant’s uplifting and exaltation. But thou receivest that benefaction 
as an occasion for blasphemy (878). 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries said, 
And we have in our hands books also of the blasphemies of the most 
religious Nestorius, from one book of which we have chosen out short 
chapters, which, if it please this Holy Synod, we will read. 

Flavian, Bishop of Philippi said, Let them be read, and be inserted 
to show [the fairness and] the good faith of the Christian Acts (879). 
And all the Bishops said in like manner: We all say the same. 


(874): Galat. iv., 5; Eph. 1., 5. 

(βηγπὴ ὉΠ». τι, 7: 

(876). Eph. 111., το. 

(877). Col. i. 22; II. Tim. i., 10; Heb. ii., 14, 15; I. Cor. xv., 53, 54. 

(878). ‘The Testimonies of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and those of 
Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, are lacking in Vincent of Lerins’ Commentary 
by mistake, for, as Mansi (Conc. tom. iv., col. 1193, 1194) shows, they are found 
in Greek and in old Latin translations. 


(879). Kai ἐμφερέσθωσαν τῇ πίστει τῶν Χριστιανῶν πεπραγμένων. To put athing 
as approved into the Aéts of an Ecumenical Synod gave it an Ecumenical 
character. But the putting of Nestorius’ blasphemies into these Acts was to show 
that the Synod had condemned him for just cause, and notin passion, and so 
they are put into them as disapproved, which shows that they are Ecnmenically 
condemned. 

(880). The word τετράδιον used here and below in the text means four, and 
then comes to mean in binder’s language four shee¢s, that is, 16 pages in all. 
Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon defines, as follows: τετράδιον * ὃ * the num- 
ber four * * * 2, Four-leaved pamphlet.” 


That and the following may serve to explain the expression “‘guaternion” 
(τετράδιον) in the language of the Council of Ephesus on the guaterntons of 
Nestorius. 

Eusebius in his Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book IV. chapter 
37 of the English translation published by Bagster, tells how the Emperor 
ordered him to have fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures written for use in the 
Churches of Constantinople; that they were to be “‘i# a commodious and port- 
able form,” etc. In chapter 38 of the same translation (37 in Migne’s Greek). 
Eusebius tells us how he had the order executed as follows: 

‘Such were the Emperor's commands, which were followed by the im- 
mediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and 


450 Act I of Ephesus. 


[PassaGE 1]. A Passage taken out of the seventeenth (880) tetrad 
of the Rook of Nestorius on Dogma. And it was read as follows: 


Whenever therefore the Scripture of God is about to speak 
either of the birth of the Anointed One (881) out of Mary the Virgin, 
or of His death, it seems nowhere to use the term God (882), but the 
Anointed One (883),or Son, or Lord, because those three expressions 
(884) are significative of the Two Natures; at one time, for example, 
of one of them; at another time of the other; at still another time of 
both of them. When the Scripture sets forth (885) to us the birth 


elaborate volumes of a three-fold and four-fold form.’’ On this last expression 
Valesius, as there quoted remarks: 


‘“The parchment copies were usually arranged in quaternions, that is, four 
sheets made up together, as the ternions consisted of three sheets. The quater- 
nions each contained sixteen pages, the ternions twelve: Valesius in loc.” I 
append Eusebius’ Greek here: Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν βασιλεὺς διεκελεύετο" αὐτίκα δ᾽ ἔργον 
ἐπηκολούθει τῷ λόγῳ, ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ διαπεμψάντων 
ἡμῶν. On the words τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ in the above, note 91, col. 1185, tome 20 
of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, remarks as follows, (I translate it from the Latin 
into English): 


‘The translator renders [the three Greek words above] by ‘ Zevniones’ and 
‘ guaterniones’’’ [thatis, in English ‘‘¢ervmzons and guaternions,”’ that is “‘ threes 
and fours.’’] For the membrane Codexes were, for the most part, arranged in 
quaternions, that is, in foursheets fastened together, as the ternions are three 
sheets fastened together. And the quaternions were wont to have [each of them] 
sixteen pages; and the ternions, each of them twelve pages. Moreover on the 
last page of the quaternion was marked the number of the quaternion, for in- 
stance, I, 2, 3, and so on in order, as I have observed in the oldest codexes, both 
Greek and Latin. Ina most ancient codex of Gregory of Tours, which was 
written nine hundred years ago [or ‘‘ before A. Ὁ. 900’’], on the last page of 
the quaternion I found the following mark, ‘‘q. I,” that is ‘guaternio primus,’ 
[that is, in English ‘‘ first guaternion.’?] But the reader is tobe warned that 
there is an enallage in the above words of Eusebius. For he has used the ex- 
pression τετρασσὰ ἐν τεύχεσι [that is, ‘‘guaternions in sections,’’ when he should. 
rather have said, τεύχη ἐν τετρασσοῖς, [that is, in English “122. guaternion 
seélions.”? | 


The τετράδιον of Act I. of Ephesus, and the τετρασσὰ of Eusebius above I take- 
to mean the same. 


(881). τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

(882). Θεός. 

(883). Χριστὸς ἢ υἱὸς, ἢ κύριος, ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα τὰ τρία τῶν φύσεών εἰσι τῶν δύο: 
σημαντίικα. 

(884). Namely, Anointed One, Son, and Lord. 

(885). Or, ‘‘erplains.”” 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 451 


out of the Virgin, it says, God sent forth His Son, (866); it has not 
said, God sent forth God the Word, but it takes the name [Son] which 
shows the two Natures. For since the Son is Man and God, it says, 
God sent forth His Son, made out of a woman (887), (888), in order 
that when thou hearest the expression made out of a woman, then 
thou mayest see that inasmuch as the name [Son] which precedes. 
in the clause signifies the Two Natures, thou mayest call the birth 
out of the holy Virgin the son’s birth. For the Virgin Bringer- 
Forth-of-the-Anointed-One (889) brought forth God’s son, but pre- 
cisely because the Son of Godis double as regards His Natures (890), 
she did not bring forth the Son of God, but she brought forth the 


humanity (891), which [humanity] is Son because of the Son con- 
joined to Him (892). 


(886). Galat. iv., 4. 

(887). Ibid. 

(888). Greek, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς. 
(889). Greek, 7 Χριστοτόκος παρθένος͵ 
(390). Or, “the Natures.”’ 

(891). Or, ‘‘ His humanity.” 


(892). ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδήπερ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ διπλοῦς ἔστι κατὰ τὰς φύσεις, οὐκ ἐγέννησε μὲν" 
τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγέννησε τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, ἡτίς ἐστιν Ὑἱὸς διὰ τὸν συνημμένον Ὑἱόν. 
Here amidst much that is misty after his wont, Nestorius, 


1. Plainly denies the true do¢trine of the Incarnation. Forhesays clearly 
that the Virgin ‘‘ dd not bring forth the Son of God, but she brought forth the 
humanity.’’ Consequently God the Word must, according to his misbelief, have- 
entered the Man at some time after that birth. In other words, He did not 
dwell Personally in him before his birth out of the Virgin, that is, the Person,, 
that s, the Eternal Substance of God the Word did not. 


2. He goes on to tell us in what sense he regards that humanity as: being 
Son: ‘‘ which [humanity] zs Son because of the Son conjoined to him,’ that is, as: 
Cyril of Alexandria in his /ive-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
torius shows, Nestorius held that the Man, though a creature could receive both 
the /z//es and the worship due to God the Word because of his relation tothe 
Word, that is, ve/atively,as the heathen held that theirimages could be relatively 
called gods, and relatively worshipped as such, because each deity dweltin his 
own image by his power. Such creature worship is condemned by Anathema 
VIII. of St. Cyril, approved by the Third Council, by Anathemas IX. and: XII. 
of the Fifth Council and by its Definition, of which they form part. 


But in what sense then does Nestorius speak of the Son of God as “‘ double 
as regards His Natures?’’ Does He mean that ¢he Substance of God the Word 
dwelt in the Man, to use his own expression, ‘‘conjoined to Him,’’ or does he 
mean that God the Word dwelt in that Man by His Spirit only as he dwelt. im 
the prophets? 


452 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[PAassAGE 2.] Another Passage taken out of the same book, tetrad 
BEL, (S03). ; 

See the upshot, (894) O heretic. I do not grudge the expression 
to the Virgin Bringer forth of the Anointed One; but I know that 
she who received God is deserving of respect (895), she through 


I answer, he means the latter. For he denies that God the Word was born 
out of the Virgin’s womb in the Man “" conjoined’’ to Him, to use his own ex- 
pression again. See the words just quoted under head 1 above. 


The Son of God, according to Nestorius, is composed of Two Natures, but 
according to him, the divine Nature, that is, God the Word’s Substance, is not 
in the Man, and so there is no Personal Union between them, but only a union 
of will and affection, as there was between a prophet and an apostle and God. 
Cyril in his work above mentioned unearths and exposes this foxy heretic, or 
perhaps we may say misty heretic. Any one who would fully understand the 
matters involved should read those Five Books of Cyril at the beginning of the 
investigation. The view of the ancients and of the Third Ecumenical Synod 
and the Fifth that Nestorius was a denier of the Incarnation and a Wan-Server 
(ἀνθρωπολάτρης) is clearly and indubitably borne out by the faéts. The modern 
notion that he was innocent, and that he differed from Cyril and the Orthodox 
in words only, was not his own view and is opposed to all the data given. It 
was first started in modern times by men who did not fully understand the con- 
troversy. When it comes to be thoroughly comprehended, the mistake will pass 
away, so far at least as the intelligent are concerned. 


I would add that Pusey, note ‘‘O,”’ page 49 of his Oxford translation of Cyrz/ 
of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, omits the “ zot”’ before 
“bring forth the Son of God”? above. But the sense seems to demand it, and it 
is in accordance with Nestorius’ misbelief expressed by him in other places also. 
Pusey states in effect that Marius Mercator omits the ‘'vo/,”’ but it is given in 
the quotation above of the Third Council and by Commel., as Pusey owns. It 
seems therefore to be the true reading, and it is likely that Marius Mercator 
translated from a copy which was defe¢tive here, or that a ‘‘wzot’’ has been 
omitted by some copyist of his version. 


_ (893). A note in col. 1063, 1064, of tome 3, of Coleti’s Comcilia, remarks on 
the above numbering: ‘‘.So Mercator: but an old editor, and some manuscripts 
have ‘tetrad tv.’”? 


(894). τὸ συμβαῖνον. The words “Ὁ heretic’’ next following show that Nes- 
torius did not deem the difference between himself and the Orthodox a mere 
logomachy as some moderns have made it. No sound ancient did, nor have the 
Nestorians themselves at any time. Their writings contain Anathemas against 
Ephesus and its doctrine. 


" 


(895). ἀλλ᾽ οἶδα σεβασμίαν τὴν δεξαμένην Θεὸν, δι’ ἧς προῆλθεν ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, δι᾽ 
ἧς ἀνέλαμψε τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὁ ἥλιος. Badgers Nestorians and their Rituals shows 
that the present Nestorians are degraded invokers of the Virgin Mary. See 
their own words there given by him, their friend. 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 453 


whom the God of the Universe went forth (896), she through whom 
the Sun of Righteousness (897) arose and shone forth. Again I sus- 
pect your applause (898). How did you understand the expression 
went forth? 1 have not used the expression ‘‘ went forth’’ (899) in 
the sense of ‘‘ was born’’ (900), for I do not so quickiy forget my 
own words. That God the Word wezt forth (901) out of the Virgin 
Bringer Forth of the Anointed One I have been taught by the Scrip- 
tures of God, but that God was born out of her (902) I have nowhere 
been taught (903). 
[PASSAGE 3]. And after some other words Nestorius says: 


Therefore the Scripture of God nowhere says that God was born 
out of the Virgin Bringer Forth of the Anointed One (904) but it 
says that Jesus Anointed,and Son and Lord (905) [was born out of her], 
and we all confess these [last three] expressions, tor he who does not 
receive the things which the Scripture of God has taught is certainly 
a wretched man. ‘The expression used by the angels is, Avise and 
take the young child (906) and his mother (907). And the archangels 
certainly knew the matters pertaining to the birth better than thou 


(896). All that Nestorius means by this is that Godthe Word dy 2715 Spirit 
only, was in the Man born of the Virgin, before, during, and after his birth. He 
denied that God the Word’s divine Substance was in the Virgin’s womb at any 
time in that Man; see the context. According to him the God of the Universe 
went forth ¢hrough her, that is, by her, asthe Greek here means, in that He sancti- 
fied Christ’s humanity in the womb and was then and afterwards by His Spirit in 
the body which had been born out of her, and used it by inspiring it by His 
Spirit to do His will, and like a prophet, to reveal God to men. 


ἴϑογ)" Mal. iv, 2: 

(898). Or, ‘‘your clapping,’’ τὸν κρότον. 

(899). Greek, πῶς τὸ ‘‘ 
τοῦ ““ ἐγεννήθη."" 

(goo). Greek, see last note. 


προῆλθεν ᾽᾽ ἐνοήσατε; οὐκ εἴρηταί μοι τὸ ““ προῆλθεν," ἀντὶ 


(go1). Greek, προελθεῖν. 

(go2). Greek, γεννηθῆναι. 

(903). This seems contradi¢tory, if we do not remember that Nestorius held 
that God the Word by His Spirit alone dwelt in her, and when It went out of 
her in the babe born of her, God the Word is said, according to Nestorius, to 
have gone out of her, because His Spirit, not Himself in his Substance, went out 
ofher. But, Nestorius did not mean that the Substance of the Spirit was in the 
babe but Its 7zfluence only. 

(904). Greek, τῆς Χριστοτόκου παρθένου. 

(905). Greek, ’Ijoovv Χριστὸν, καὶ υἱὸν, καὶ κύριον. 

(906). Greek, τὸ παιδίον, little child and so young child. 

(907). Matt. ii., 19, 20; the Greek there has ange/, not angels. 


454 Act I. of Ephesus. 


dost. He said, Avise and take the little child (908) and his mother. 
He did not say, Arise and take Godand Fis mother (909). 


[PassaGE 4]. Likewise from the same tetrad XXIV. 


What therefore we have been saying is of the tenor following: 
Fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that which ts generated in her (910) 
or is made (911), (for whether thou usest one or both of those ex- 
pressions [‘‘zs generated,’ (γεννηθέν) or ‘zs made,’ (γενηθέν)] works 
no injury to the thought and the sense) for that which is generated 
in her ts of the Holy Spirit. [But], if we say that Gop THE WORD 
WAS GENERATED IN THE FLESH, [it is an injury to the thought and 
to the sense], for it is one thing for God the Word to be with that 


a a ee LL. 


(908). Greek, τὸ παιδίον. 


(999). This is the clap-trap style of oratory and of writing common 
to unlearned mere popular preachers in all ages. He tries to turn into ridicule 
his opponent’s dogma that he may render more acceptable his own denial of the 
Incarnation and his own service to the humanity of Christ, that is, his own Man- 
Service, that is, Man-Worship. 


(910). Matt. i., 20. The Greek, γεννηθέν in this verse is best rendered con- 
ceived as in our Common English Version, or begotten. But it can be rendered 
generated as Nestorius takes it. Vatum, (60rn), is the Latin rendering of it in 
the parallel column in Coleti, but it is not a good one here. Nestorius aims to- 
prove that the γεννηθέν of Matt. 1., 20, refers to one nature of Christ alone, that is, 
tothe humanity. And he implies that he takes that γεννηθέν, conceived, as equiva- 
lent to γενηθέν made. But we reply, first that we do not find the latter reading 
in Tischendorf’s Editio Oftava Critica Major, except in two late manuscripts, 
both of the ninth century. All the older manuscripts are for γεννηθέν, concerved. 


Second, John i., 14, showsthat the Word was made flesh. And so the Church 
has well decided in the Third Synod that at the conception Mary received God 
the Word into her womb Who there put on flesh, and came in due time into the 
world, God to be worshipped, and Man to worship, and to suffer and to die for 
us, and not one nature alone, the humanity, for that ends in denial of the Incar- 
nation and in worshipping a Man. 


(911). A part of a word meaning ‘‘ade’’ seems to be omitted in Coleti’s 
text here. I have supplied it from the Latin in his parallel column. The Latin 
translation of this part preserved in Act I. of Chalcedon is more definite and 
clear. Itis as follows: Quod igitur dicebamus. Noli timere accipere Mariam 
conjugem tuam: quod enim in ea natum, vel factum est (quod sive per unam 
“+4 literam, sive per duas scribitur, sensui nihil praejudicat) de Spiritu Sancto 
est. The notes in the margin of Coleti there (col. 1154 of tome iv. of his Coz- 
cilia), make this still clearer as follows: “ γεννηθέν means born, but γενηθέν means 
made,” [γεννηθέν, natum significat, γενηθέν vero factum]. Then in the text 
dire@ly after that last quoted, Nestorius adds: Si vero dixerimus quia Verbum 
natus est [ἐγεννήθη is the Greek in Act I. of Ephesus here, and the Greek is found 
nowhere else],in carne, aliud enim est simul esse cum illo qui natus est, et aliud, 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 455 


which is born, and another thing to be born Himself (912). For 
the angel says, that which ἐς generated [or ‘‘conceived’’| in her is of 
the Holy Ghost (913), that is, the Holy Ghost created it in her. 


nasci. On this last passage a marginal note in Coleti (Conc., tom. 4, col. 1154) 
gives an explanation from a manuscript which is as follows: Quoniam si duas 
posueris non [the ‘‘7ouz’’ isevidently a mistake of some copyist who did not 
know Greek, for the Greek letter v, that is Wu] literas apud Graecos “ zatus”’ 
intelligitur, si vero una [that is, one Nu] ‘“‘/adzus.’? But nxatum, born, is not a 
good translation for γεννηθέν, in Matt. i., 20, for the reference isto the conception, 
not at all to the 477th which is mentioned in the following verse as still future. 
I give the context, Matt. i., 20, ‘‘ Behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto 
him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou Son of David, fear not to take unto thee 
Mary thy wife for that which is conceived in her (τὸ yap ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθέν) ts of 
the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name 
Jesus.’ ‘The Greek of the last part of verse 20 may be rendered in such a way 
as to make it refer to God the Word as conceived in Mary’s womb, that is, if we 
take Spirit there as some of the ancients commonly understood and used that 
word, in the sense of Divinity. Thus, τὸ yap ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου, 
may in that case well be translated, ‘‘ For that which ts conceived in her 15 out 
of Holy Divinity.”’ 

The true reading of the defective place above is given in note 920 below in 
the original Greek; see there. 

I would add that the translation of the clause γεννηθέντα, ov ποιηϑέντα in the 
Creed of the First Ecumenical Council and of the Second, dy begotten, not made, 
is singularly unhappy and misleading. For we use the term dege¢ in the sense 
of procreate and get and procure, and that of things that had neither birth nor 
existence before, in which sense it is equivalent to make or create. But God the 
Word was eternally immanent in the Father as a part of the consubstantial Divin- 
ity (ὁ Λόγος ἐνδιάϑετος, the Word inside the Father) and was not born out of Him 
till just before the worlds were made and to make them, when He became ¢he 
Word borne Forth, ὁ Λόγος προφορικός, as St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch about 
A. Ὁ. 171-183 well explains. See in the General Index to vol. I. of Nicaea in 
this Set, under “ Theophilus St., of Antioch.’’ I hope to show these things more 
at length in an Essay on Eternal Birth in this Set. The words γεννηθέντα, ov 
ποιηϑέντα are well rendered natum, non factum, by Hilary of Poictiers in his 
Latin Version of the Nicene Creed (see the second edition of Hahn’s Lzbliothek 
der Symbole, page 81). So Dionysius Exiguus renders the same Greek words in 
his Latin of the Creed of the Second World-Synod, natum non factum, (Hahn 
id., page 83) which I have followed in my English of the Creed of the First 
Council on page 307 of vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 

(912). Nestorius admitted that God the Word was with the Man at his 
birth, that is by His Spirit, but he would not admit that He (God the Word) was 
incarnate in the Virgin’s womb and born out of her in the Man taken from her 
substance. 

(913). Matt. i., 20. The Greek γεννηϑέν, the common reading here, has two 


456 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Therefore the Fathers (914) who were skilled in the Scriptures of 
God saw that if we use the expression dovn (915) regarding Him 
who put on flesh (916), God the Word will be found to be the Son 
ofthe Spirit, or to have two Fathers (917), or if we assert that God 
the Word was made (918) then He will be found to be a creation of 
the Spirit (919). Therefore they shunned the expression, 77th 


chief meanings, 1, of the Father, /o beget; 2, of the mother, Zo conceive, to bear, 
to bring forth. Our Common English Version gives here conceived, and in the 
margin begotten. The reference is to Christ’s humanity, but at the same time 
the Divine Substance of God the Word put on that humanity in Mary’s womb, 
a fact which Nestorius here denies. See John i., 14, the great Orthodox text 
against his heresy. 


(914). Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were the chief 
teachers of the Nestorian party. Therefore Cyril in tracing the error and heresy 
to its source deemed it his duty to write against both of them. Fragments of 
his writings against them are still preserved, and are Englished on pages 320- 
362 of the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius. 

(915). Greek, τὸν γεννηϑέντα. 

(916). Greek, ᾽Εὰν ἐπὶ τὸν σαρκωϑέντα ϑῶμεν τὸν γεννηϑέντα. See the Greek of 
the context in a note below. The above expression may also be rendered, ‘If 
we use the expression ‘degotten’ regarding Him who took flesh,” that is, re- 
garding God the Word. Nestorius, as his langnage in these Twenty Passages 
from him shows, did not believe that the Substance of God the Word had put on 
flesh, but only that His Spirit indwelt Christ’s flesh as It had the prophets’ flesh. 
In that sense alone did He take flesh, according to his heresy. 


(917). By ‘‘two Fathers,” I presume that Nestorius means God the Father 
and God the Holy Ghost. 


(918). γενηϑέν, is the Greek word here meant. 


(919). The Latin has ‘‘of the Holy Spirit,” instead of “‘ of the Spirit.” See 
this place quoted at Chalcedon in Coleti’s Concilia, tome iv., col. 1155. 


The calibre of this man’s mind can be seen from the above. He 
makes γεννηϑέντα, conceived, in the passage above equivalent to γενηϑέν, made. 
But γεννηϑέντα does not always have the sense of made, created, and certainly 
not in the Credal expression γεννηθέντα, ov ποιηϑέντα, where dorn, used of God the 
Word does not mean that He was created, as even Nestorius himself would con- 
fess. Indeed the whole Church in the First Ecumenical Synod and the Second 
had used that very word γεννηϑέντα in the sense of dorn in direct opposition to 
created in the clause born, not made (γεννηϑέντα, ov ποιηϑέντα), said of God the 
Word Himself. This clause is exactly the same in the Symbol of the First 
Synod and in that of the Second. Besides the Anathema of the First Synod, at 
the end of its Creed, curses those who say, ‘‘ that the Sonof God * * * was 
not before He was born,’ which is an implied condemnation of the Arian error 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 457 


(920) and used the words ‘‘ Who came down for us men, and for our 
salvation, took flesh’ (921). Whatis took flesh? He was not changed 
from Divinity into flesh. By using tne expression ‘ook flesh of the 


into which Nestorius seems to have fallen that dorm means made or created, in 

the passage of which he is speaking. And Nestorius professed to hold to the 
First Synod, and in all probability to the Second also, for we never read of his 
rejecting it. Theophilus of Antioch, Nestorius’ own former home, had spoken 
of God the Word as the Word in and through the Father (ὁ Λόγος ἐνδιάϑετος) be- 
fore He became the Word dorne forth (ὁ Λόγος προφορικός) out of him by birth just 
before the worlds were made and to make them. I quote this part of the Greek 
from the Conc. Collectis Regia, tom. 5, Paris, 1644, page 510, where the Greek 
is given more accurately than in Coleti: ὅπερ οὖν ἐλέγομεν: Μὴ φοβηϑῆς παραλαβεῖν 
Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου, Τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηϑὲν, εἴτε διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς v, εἴτε διὰ τῶν δύο, τῷ 
νοήματι οὐδὲν λυμαίνεται" τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ τεχϑὲν ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν ᾿Αγίου" ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, ὅτι 
ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος ἐγεννήϑη ἐν τῇ σαρκί. "Αλλο γὰρ τὸ συνεῖναι τῷ γεννωμένῳ, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ 
γεννᾶσϑαι, Td γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ, φησὶ, γεννηϑὲν ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν ‘Ayiov, τουτέστι, τὸ Πνεῦμα 
τὸ “Αγιον ἔκτισε τὸ ἐν αὐτῆ. Εἶδον οὖν οἱ πατέρες, ὡς ἐπιστήμονες τῶν Θείων Γραφῶν ὅτι ἐὰν 
ἑπὶ τὸν σαρκωϑέντα ϑῶμεν τὸν γεννηθέντα, εὑρίσκεται ἢ Υἱὸς Πνεύματος ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος, ἢ Sto 
πατέρας ἔχων, ἢ 0 ἑνὸς ν εὐρεϑήσεται ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος κτίσμα τοῦ Πνεύματος ὦν. 

The allusions to the two forms γεννηϑὲν and γενηϑέν in Matthew i., 20, may 
imply that those were readings in that verse then. But Tischendorf in his 
Greek Testament (Zdzt1o O¢iava Critica Major, Lipsiae, 1869) puts γεννηϑέν in 
the text, and gives the lection γενηϑέν as that of only two manuscripts, both of 
the ninth century. 

Above I have endeavored to make the sense of Nestorius as plain as I could 
to the English reader. 

But the Greek Scholar alone can understand Nestorius’ linguistic argument 
here. I translate it literally; 

‘““What therefore we have been saying is of the tenor following: Fear not 
to take Mary thy wife. For that whitch ts (γεννηϑέν) begotten in her. Whether 
we read γενηϑέν, made, which has but one Nu, or γεννηϑέν, begotten, which has two 
Nus, works no injury to'the thought and the sense, for [the meaning will still 
be] that which ts begotten tn her ts of the Holy Ghost. [But] if we say that God 
the Word was begotten (ἐγεννήθη) in the flesh [it is an injury to the thought and 
the sense]: for it is one thing [for God the Word] to be with that thing which is 
born [τῷ γεννωμένῳ] and another thing to be born (yevvacda) [Himself ἢ: 


For the angel says that which is degotten (γεννηϑέν) in her is of the Holy 
Ghost, that is, the Holy Ghost made (ἔκτισε) itin her. Therefore the Fathers 
who were skilled in the Scriptures of God saw that if we use the expression ée- 
gotten (τὸν γεννηϑέντα) regarding Him who took flesh, God the Word will be 
found to be the Son of the Spirit, or to have two Fathers: or if we use only one 
Nu and so say that God the Word was made (yevy3év), then He will be found to 
be a creature [that is, ‘‘a creation’? ] of the Spirit. 


(920). Greek, τῆς γεννήσεωι. 


458 Act I of Ephesus. 


FToly Ghost’ (921), they followed the Evangelist. For the Evange- 
list when he came to the Inman (922) avoided the assertion of bzrth 
(923) regarding the Word] and used putting on flesh (924). Where? 
Hear: ‘And the Word was made flesh’ (925). Hedid not say, ‘7he 
Word was born in flesh (926). For whenever either the Apostles or 
the Evangelists make mention of the Soz, they use the expression, 
“He was born out of a woman’ (927). Attend, I pray to what is said: 
wherever they mention the name of the Sox (928) and say that he 
was born out of a woman (929) they use the expression, ‘he was 
éorn,’ but wherever they make mention of the Word none of them 
has dared to assert a birth [of Him, that is, of God the Word] in the 
humanity (930). Listen: the blessed John the Evangelist having 
come to the Word and His Inman (931), hear what sort of words he 
utters, ‘Zhe Word was made flesh,’ that is, took flesh, ‘and tabernacled 
among us,’ that is, put on our nature, and dwelt among us; and we 
saw his glory (932), that is, the glory of the Son. He did not say We 
saw the birth of the Word.’ 

[PassaGE 5]. Another Passage also from the same book [of Nes- 
torius], zetrad XV., on Dogma: 


(921). Zook flesh is in the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod, and 
in that of the Second. But the words, ‘‘of the Holy Ghost,’’ are in the latter 
alone. And we must remember that the discussion here between Nestorius and 
Cyril of Alexandria is as to the meaning of the Credal teaching of the Universal 
Church on the Incarnation and on Christ. 


(922). Greek, τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν. 

(923). Greek, γέννησιν. 

(924). Greek, σάρκωσιν. 

(925). Johni., 14: 

(926). Or ‘‘dy flesh’? (διὰ σαρκός), that is, by the aid of a human being, like 
‘the Virgin for instance. 

(927). Greek, ἐκ γυναικός, 

(928). By the Word ‘‘ 5071" here, Nestorius means evidently the Man alone. 
The term ‘‘Sov’’ was to him ‘‘s7gnzficative,’’ as he says above, “‘of the Two Na- 


tures,” only that it reminded him of his ownidea of a conneétion between that 
Man and God the Word, not of the Orthodox idea. 


(929). Greek, ἐκ γυναικός, 

(930). Greek, γέννησιν διὰ τῆς ἀνϑρωπότητος, But Cyril shows elsewhere that 
this is in substance said in John i., 14, and in Philippians ii., 5-9. And the 
passages of the Fathers quoted above in this Act I. show that the Church had 
ever held to the true doctrine that God the Word Himself took flesh and put on 
a Man in the womb of the Virgin, and in that Man was born out of her. 

(931). Greek, τὴν ἐνανϑρώπησιν αὐτοῦ. 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 459 


So also we name the man who was Anointed according to the 
flesh, God, because of his conjoinment with God, (933) though we know 
that which appears as man. Hear Paul proclaiming both [those] 
things; Of the Jews, says he, zs the Anointed One as tt regards the flesh, 

Who ts God over all (934). He confesses the man first, and then 
calls that which appears God, by reason of its conjun¢tion with God, 
in order that no one may suspect Christianity of serving a Man (935). 

[PassaGE 6]. Another Passage likewise from the same book [οἵ 
Nestorius], tetrad XXVTII., (936)- 

But as we have been wont to say that God is the Creator of all 
things, and that Moses was a god; for it says, 7 have placed thee a god 
to the Pharaoh (937) and [as] it calls Israel a Son of God; for Israel, it 


(932). John 1., 14. 
(933). See against this Cyril’s Anathema VIII. 


(934).. Rom. 1x., 5. 

(935). As “‘ that which appears” of the Son is only the Man put on by God 
the Word, of course to call that Man God, for the sake of the Word who in- 
dwelt him, according to Nestorius, by His grace alone, is relative creature ser- 
vice, as Cyril of Alexandria in effect shows, in his writings against Nestorius. 
Hence the Eighth of his Twelve Anathemas curses it. And Nestorius was so 
well aware that to call the Man put on God, is an act of service that he tries like 
the heathen to fall back on the plea of relative service to defend service to a 
creature. And he wasso unlearned and foolish as to suppose that by that at- 
tempt at evasion he had brought it to pass ‘‘¢hat no one might suspect” his 
paganized kind of “Christianity of Man-Service,” that is, “07 serving a Man.”’ 
See how Cyril of Alexandria refutes his ve/ative service in the Oxford translation 
of his works ‘‘on the Incarnation against Nestorius,’’ pages 63 to 80 inclusive. 
On page 67 in the margin we see that Cyril actually used the term relatively 
(σχετικῶς) which is mistranslated by P. E. Pusey, who I fear, sympathized to some 
extent with paganized Christianity, such as Romanism, etc. See his translation 
of Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius; Index of Greek 
words under σχέσει and σχετικήν and σχετικῶς. The Greek of the above is as 
follows in Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1065: θὕτω καὶ τὸν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστὸν ἐκ τῆς 
πρὸς Θεὸν Λόγον συναφείας Θεὸν ὀνομάζομεν, φαινόμενον εἰδότες ὡς ἄνθρωπον. *“Akovoov τοῦ 
Παύλου ἀμφότερα κηρύττοντος" “BE ᾿Ιουδαίων,͵ φησὶν, ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων 
Θεός" ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρότερον, καὶ τότε TY τοῦ Θεοῦ συναφείᾳ θεολογεὶ τὸ φαινόμενον, 
ἵνα μηδεὶς ἀνθρωπολατρείαν τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν ὑποπτεύσῃ. 

(936). ‘‘Rusticus the Deacon cites this place in his book adv. Aceph,’’ (note 
in col. 1067, tome 3, of Coleti’s Cozcilia.) 

(937). Exod. vii., 1. On this see Rosenmilleri Scholia in Vetus Testamen- 
tum. Nestorius perverts the expression to make it favor his creature service. 
Cyril of Alexandria well refutes him. 

(938). Exod. iv., 22; Numbers iii., 12; Jerem. xxxix., 9. But God does not 
say that Israel was born out of His divine Substance. 


400 Act I. of Ephesus. 


says, zs my jirst born Son (938): and as we have been wont to say 
that Saul was an Anointed One, for it says, / will notlay my hand upon 
him, for he ts the Lord’s Anointed (939), and [as] the same expression 
Anointed is used of Cyrus likewise, for it says, 7hese very things 
saith the Lord to Cyrus my Anointed, and as it calls the Babylonian 
holy, for it says, 7 well ordain for them, They are sanétified [that 
is, ‘‘made holy,’?| and I lead them (940). So we say that the 
Master Azxointed also is God, and Son, and holy, and Anointed. But 
though the use of the names (941) is common [to both Natures 
alike], yet the dignity [of the Two] is not the same. 

[PassaGE 7]. Another Passage also from the same Book [οἵ Nes- 
torius], fetvad XV. 


Let this mind be in you which was also in Anointed Jesus; Who 
being in God's form, made Himself of no reputation, having taken a 
servants form (942). It has not said, Let this mind be in you, which 
was also in God the Word, Who being in God’s form, took a servant's 
form: but, having taken the expression Azointed (943) as an appel- 
lation significative of the two Natures, it says without any danger 
{to souls] both that he took aservant’s form and names him God 
(944), the things aforesaid being separated blamelessly into the 
duality of the Natures (945). 


(939). I. Sam. xxiv., 6, 10, Cyril refutes all these arguments in his works 
against Nestorius. See the Oxford translation, pp. 54-58, 210, 271, 302, cp. 360. 

(940). Isaiah xiii., 3, Septuagint; edit. Oxonii, 1859. Van Ess’ edition of 
1835, (Lipsiae), omits a part of what is in the edit. Oxon. in this verse. 

(941). Thatis, thenames God, and Son, and holy, and Anointed. Cyril 
shows that all these appellations are to be applied to the Word alone, and that 
no man can be called god in the proper sense. See what I have quoted else- 
where in this work from him. And we must follow his views on this to avoid 
serving the Man put on, for, if we do not, we violate Christ’s law against serving 
any but God in Matt. iv., το, and in Luke iv., 8. And this is the sense of the 
Eighth of his Twelve Anathemas, and of the First and Ninth of those of the 
Fifth Ecumenical Synod. Just below instead of, ‘‘yet the dignity [of the Two] 
15 not the same,’’ we may render, ‘‘yet the dignity [of the names] 7s not the 
same,’ that is, the name God, he may mean, refers to God, whereas in the pas- 
sages just cited by him, he thinks Soz and holy and Anointed means Christ’s 
humanity. 

(942).)) Philip,. τς 6,7. 

(943). Greek, ὁ Χριστός. 

(944). The virus of this is the calling of the mere creature God, for this, of 
course, means that the humanity of Christ is called God which is an act of Man- 
Service and hence of Creature-Service. 

(945). This denies the Personal, that is the Substance Union of God the 
Word to the Man taken; that is it denies that God the Word by His Eternal 
Substance is infleshed in that Man. 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 461 


[PAssAGE 8]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
Nestorius], tetrad XVZ.: 


It says, ‘‘ That at the name of Jesus (946) every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven, and of things on earth, and of things under the earth, 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Anointed is Lord’’ (947). 
I WORSHIP (948) HIM [the Man, that is, Christ’s humanity] wHo 15 
WORN, FOR THE SAKE OF HIM [God the Word] WHO WEARS. I BOW 
TO HIM WHOISSEEN, FOR THE SAKE OF Him [God the Word] WHoIs 
HIDDEN. God is unseparated from him [the Man] who appears. For 
that reason I DO NOT SEPARATE THE HONOR OF THE UNSEPARATED 
ONE. I separate the Natures, but I UNITE THE BOWING (949). 


(946). The Greek may be rendered ‘‘z” the name,” or ‘‘a¢ the name”’ as 
in our English Common Version. 


(947)... Philip. 15. 9; Τὸ: 
(948). Greek, σέβω. 


(949). Colett Conc., tom. 3, col. 1068, Διὰ τὸν φοροῦντα τὸν φορούμενον σέβω. 
Διὰ τὸν κεκρυμμένον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον. ᾿Αχώριστος TOV φαινομένου Θεός. Διὰ τοῦτο 
τοῦ μὴ χωριζομένου τὴν τιμὴν οὐ χωρίζω. KXwpilw τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἑνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. 
The creature service of this passage which is full of velative worship to Christ’s 
humanity, Cyril of Alexandria ably exposes and refutes in his /ive-Book Con- 
tradition of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. See the Oxford translation of 5S. 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, especially pages 54 
to 80 inclusive, where some of the very language of Nestorius above is quoted 
and refuted. See also pages 85-87, note, in this volume. And when Cyril re- 
futes that higher and most plausible kind of the sin of velative service, that is, 
relative worship to the Man put on by God the Word, given to that Man because 
of God the Word who dwelt in him, much more does he, by necessary implica- 
tion, refute the lower and still more debased forms of relative service such as 
bowing to altars, images painted, that is pictures, images graven, to relics, or to 
any other things or to any creature animate or inanimate, because of God. And 
of course, he refutes also all those erroneous views on the Eucharist which teach 
men to worship Christ’s humanity as present in that rite, and also the error of 
worshipping Christ’s Divinity as there or any where but in heaven. 


On the words above, ‘‘/ worship him [the Man] who 15 worn for the sake of 
Him (God the Word] Who wears: I bow to him [the Man] who 15 seen for the 
sake of Him [God the Word] Who zs hidden,’ Pusey, note ‘‘v,’’ page 75 of his 
English translation of S. Cyril on the Incarnation against Nestorius states: 


‘These words are extant in Nestorius’ first Sermon, page 55, Baluz., but 
some phrases are repeated in Serm. 2, page 65 just following S. Cyril’s last cita- 
tion. The words Because of the wearer I worship the worn, are not in this part 
of the second Sermon, yet are quoted (pp. 114, 115) in a long piece extracted (ail 
but these words) from Serm. 2, and again in page 207 and in an extract from the 
16th quire in which this sermon was. The words here cited are likewise cited 
by Cyril in his Great Letter to Nestorius. Three Epistles, page 64.’’ Ihave 


462 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[PASSAGE 9]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
Nestorius], tetrad XVII, 

For God the Word was Son and God even before the Inman, 
and was together with the Father, but in later times He took the 
form of a servant (950). But before that He was Son and was called 
Son. Since that taking [of flesh] (951) [however], He [lhe Word] 


translated them above, pages 221-224. Because the Universal Church condemned 
these words as in the above quotations from Nestorius, and by approving Cyril’s 
condemnation of them in the ‘‘Great Letter’’ just mentioned, as it did at 
Ephesus, A. D. 431, and in the Three Ecumenical Synods after it, therefore it may 
be justly said that z¢ has five times condemned all relative service to Christ’s hu- 
manity, and by necessary implication all relative service to any creature less than 
zt, and all other creature service no less than five times, that is to say, 


I. By condemning the above quotation as on page 449, and below; 
2. By condemning it as in Cyril’s Great Letter mentioned above; 


3. By condemning it in the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, for it approved all 
the work of the Third, and hence approved its condemnation of that error; 


4. By condemning it in the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which approved all 
the work of the Third, and hence approved its condemnation of that error; 


5. By condemning it in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which approved all 
the work of the Third, and hence approved its condemnation of that error. 


In two other instances at least worship of any kind to Christ’s humanity 
was in effect condemned by the ‘‘ove, holy, universal and apostolic Church”? 
which Christ Himself commands us to hear under pain of being accounted by 
all his flock as ‘‘a heathen man anda publican’’ (Matt. xviii., 17), that is, aliens 
from His grace and salvation while we remain so disobedient; that is, 


6. By approving by a wzanimous vote in the Third Ecumenical Synod the 
Short Epistle to Nestorius which expressly and clearly rejects it. See it above, 
pages 79-93; and 

7. By expressly condemning it as Man-Service and a crime in the Defi- 
nition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: its Anathema XII. also condems it. 


To which I will add 8, 9, 10, and 11, the approval of the Eighth of Cyril 
of Alexandria’s Twelve Anathemas with the rest of Cyril’s ‘‘ Great Epistle” 
which contains it, by the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Synods, 
every one of said Synods always approving all the Ecumenical Synods before it. 

And 12 and 13, The Ninth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod con- 
demns it, which, with all the work of the Fifth, was approved by the Sixth. 

I have translated and quoted much from the Third Ecumenical Council and 
from the Fifth, and from St. Cyril and from St. Athanasius on all those themes, 
in notes 156, 183, 580, 581, 582 and 583. Compare Cyril in the note on page 118 
above, and see the advocacy by Nestorians of worship to Christ’s humanity on 
pages 120, 121, 125 and 126, id. 


A few words on the Scripture passage which stands at the head of Passage 8 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 463 


can not be called a separate Son, lest we bring in the dogma of two 
Sons. But because the Man has been conjoined to Him Who was 
Son in the beginning, for that reason, He can not admit of division 
as it respects the dignity of sonship,; 1 say as it respects the dignity of 
sonship, not as it respects the [Two] Natures (952). For that reason 


of Nestorius. 


St. Cyril understood verses 9, 10 and 11 of Chapter Second of Philippians to 
teach the worship not of Christ’s humanity but of His Divinity, whereas Nes- 
torius understood them to inculcate the worship of His humanity with God the 
Word. Furthermore, Cyril understood the whole passage, Philippians ii., 5-11, 
inclusive, of the humiliation and exaltation and worship of God the Word, even 
that Word Who is mentioned in verse 6 as having been 7 God's form before His 
Incarnation, and Who therefore, as being God, ‘‘¢hought τέ not robbery to be 
equal with God’? (Philip. ii., 6). Nestorius, on the other hand, held the humil- 
iation, the exaltation, and the worship there to mean the humiliation, exaltation, 
and worship of His mere humanity, for as he denied any Incarnation of God the 
Word, his Christ was therefore a mere Man, that is, a mere creature, and all wor- 
ship of him was therefore, as St. Cyril shows, mere Man-Worship. Cyril makes 
Nestorius’ Man-Worship clear in his Five Book Contradiction of the Blas- 
phemies of Nestorius, Book II., Sections 10, 11 and 12 (pages 72-77 of the 
Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
Nestorius). The Greek is in P. E. Pusey’s edition of Cyril, Vol VL, 
pp. 121-129. Compare section 12 of his Scholia, (pages 198-200 of that 
translation); and Book V., sections, 1, 2, 3 and 4, of Cyril’s Five-Book Contra- 
dition (pages 164-174 of the said translation); and Cyril’s Christ is One, pages 
271-287, id., where pages 273 and pages 276, 277 and 278 are especially pertinent 
against Nestorius’ Man Worship and his perversion of Philippians ii., 9, ΤῸ and 
11 to defend it, as pages 308, 309 and 310, 229, 152, 169, 319 and 354, id., also 
are. Compare pages 242, 91, 183, 224, 366. Cyril on page 169 speaks of 
Nestorian error as ‘‘ the most utter blasphemy,’’ and proves that Christ was God 
because He is worshipped in Philip. ii., 10, 11. His predecessor, Athanasius, 
God’s noble Protester, that is Protestant, against Arian Creature-Worship, had 
used the same argument to prove that the Logos is God. See Vol. I. of Nzcaea 
in this Set, pages 217-240. So Epiphanius on pages 240-247, id. For more re- 
ferences to Cyril on Philippians ii., 5-11 inclusive, see that placein P. E. Pusey’s 
edition of the Greek of Cyril, Vol. VI., and Vol., VII. Part I. in the Judex Rerum 
under Scripturarum, and in his Zndex Locorum SS. Scripturae. He often refers 
to it to refute the Nestorian perversion of it to Man-Worship. 


(950). Philip. ii., 7. 
(951). Greek, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν. As there isno word for ‘‘flesh’’ in the 
Greek here, the expression might mean “‘szuce his ascension.”’ But as the Latin 


renderer understands the expression in the sense of the text and as it seems 
most probable, I follow it. See it in col. 1156 of tome 4, of Coleti’s Conczlza. 


(952). The text of Coletiis very corrupt here, in part owing I think, to a 


464 Act I, of Ephesus. 


God the Word is named Anointed also, because He has the perpetual 
(953) conjoinment with the Anointed One, [the Man]. 


[PassaGE 10]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [οἵ 
Nestorius], δεζγαα XV. On Dogma: 


Therefore let us keep the unmixed conjoinment of the [Two] 
Natures. Let us confess the Godina Man. LET US WORSHIP THE 
MAN CO-BOWED TO WITH THE ALMIGHTY GOD IN THE DIVINE CON- 
JOINMENT (954). 

[PassaGk 11]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
Nestorius], ¢etrad VI. (955): 

And consider what it straightway subjoins to those things: 7hat 


it says, He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in those 
things which pertain to God. For in that He Himself hath suffered, 


repetition of some words by the copyist. I have preferred the reading of the 
German edition given in his margin. Anathema IV. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council curses the Nestorian error of a union of the Word and a Man not by an 
Incarnation of the Word in that Man, butin a mere union of ‘‘ dignity or equality 
of honor,’ * * * as though Christ’s mere human, created, finite nature could 
be exalted to the same dignity and rank as the divine, uncreated, and infinite 
Nature of God the Word! As though that claim were not a plain blasphemy ! 
As though any Christian should not at once see it to be so! The same Ana- 
thema goes on to teach that, 


‘The Nestorians, quite clearly asserting two Persons, pretend to assert that 
there is [but] one Person and one Christ 77 mame and honor and rank (or, ‘dig- 
nity’ and worship alone.’? ‘Then it goes on to say of such a Nestorian, 


‘But he does not acknowledge that the union of God the Word has been 
made with flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul, by being put to- 
gether, that is, by their substances.’’ Here we have again not only the denial 
of the Inman, but the giving the name of God the Word to a mere creature, 
which is anathematized in St. Cyril’s Anathema VIII. approved by Ephesus, and 
the giving that mere creature the “‘ honor and rank [or, ‘‘dignity’’] and wor- 
ship which belong to God the Word: See Passages 8, 9 and Io of Nestorius above, 
and see how Cyril denounces such Nestorian heresies in his #zve-Look Contra- 
diétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and in Cyril’s Scholia. 


(953). Or ‘‘ continual,’’ dijvery. 

(954). Coleti’s Concilia, tome 3, col. 1068: ἀσύγχυτον τοίνυν τὴν τῶν φύσεων 
τηρῶμεν συνάφειαν" ὁμολογῶμεν τὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεόν" σέβωμεν τὸν τὴ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ παντο- 
κράτορι Θεῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον. This is plain Man-Service, that is, service 
to the Man put on by God the Word, and hence, it is Creature-Service, that is 
Creature-Worship, for Man is a creature. Hence the Universal Church has 
strongly condemned it, as did St. Cyril of Alexandria. I have referred to this 
Passage on page 224 above, note. 

(955). The Latin translation of this in Act I. of Chalcedon adds, ‘On 
Dogma.’? See it in col. 1157, tome 4, in Coleti’s Conczlia. 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 465 


being tempted, Fle ts able to succor those who are tempted (956). 'There- 
fore he who suffered isa merciful High Priest, But the temple (957) 
is liable to suffering, not the God who gave life to him who suffered 
(958). 

[PASSAGE 12]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
Nestorius], ¢etrad XXVI//.: 

That ye may learn, it says, how exalted was the conjoinment of 
the Divinity, and of the Master’s flesh seen in an infant. For the 
Same One was an infant, and Lord of the infant. Ye have praised 
the expression, but do not applaud it without examination. For I 
said The Same One was an infant and a dweller in the infant (959). 

[PASSAGE 13]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
[οἵ Nestorius], ¢etrad J. - 


(956): Or, “tried.” 

(957). Greek, ὁ ναός. This expression was applied by the Nestorians to the 
body of Christ. I presume they followed in this use of terms Christ’s words in 
John ii., 21, 22. The Orthodox agreed with them in the propriety of using that 
term, but faulted them, 

τ. For denying that God the Word’s Substance verily dwelt in that temple, 
and, 

2. For worshipping that created thing, because by Christ’s own utterance 
in Matt. iv., 1o, and Luke iv., 8, every act of religious service, be it bowing, the 
most common of all, prayer, incense, prostration, or any other, is prerogative 20 
God alone, that is, to God the Father, to God the Eternal Word, and to God the 
Eternal Spirit. 

(958). Cyril and the Church meet this argument by admitting that God’s 
divine Substance can not suffer, but assert that inasmuch as the Man put on be- 
longed to the Word, therefore all his human things are to be Econoniically 
ascribed to God the Word, that men may be taught to pray still to God for help 
and not toa creature, lest we become creature-servers, that is, servers of a crea- 
ture. See on that page 237-240in vol 1. of Nicaea in this Set. 


(959). This way of speaking is condemned in the Twelve Anathemas of 
Cyril and in his /zve Books against Nestorius, and in the Anathemas of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Synod. And undoubtedly its tendency is to teach men to divide 
the Natures in the Son, and so to blur up the Infinite Nature’s, that is, the 
Word’s Superiority, and toteach us to look to the man as wellas to the Word for 
help and so to bring in Man-Worship, whereas, Cyril teaches on pages 79 and 
225 above, that we should, in the Son, worship the Word alone, Who however 
does the human things by His humanity. 


(960). Ὕποστασεσι, that is, Persons. According to the faith of the Universal 
Church from the beginning the Three Subsistences of the Trinity are of one and 
the same Substance: those three Beings, the Father, the Word and the Holy 
Spirit are but one Being, for they are parts of one whole complete Trinity. 


466 Act 1 of Ephesus. 


For the operations of the Trinity are common, and have a dis- 
tinction in the Subsistences (960) alone. ‘Therefore the good glory 
of the Sole-Born is some times ascribed to the Father; for, /¢ zs, says. 
He, my Father that glorifieth me (961), sometimes to the Spirit, for 
it says, the Spirit of Truth will glorify me (962), sometimes to the 
power of the Anointed One (963). 


[PASSAGE 14]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
[of Nestorius], tetrad XVI., where he speaks regarding Anointed One 
[as follows]: 

This is he that said, AZy God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken: 
me ?(964) ‘This is he who endured the three days’ death, and I 
BOW TO HIM TOGETHER WITH THE Divinity [of the Word] rnas- 
MUCH AS HE IS A CO-WORKER WITH THE DIVINE AUTHORITY (965). 


(961). John viii., 54. Theterm rendered ‘‘honoreth”’ in our Common En- 
glish Version, that is, δοξάζων, is generally rendered by ‘‘ glorifieth”” as above. 

(962). John xvi., 13, 14. 

(963). ‘‘Sole Born”? (Μονογενοῦς) in Cyril always means the Sole-Born out 
of the Father, that is, God the Word, as do all the other names of Christ. 
See in proof his Scholia Section 12, page 200 of the Oxford translation ofS. 
Cyril on the Incarnation. ‘‘Anointed’’ inthe mind of Nestorius means here the 
Man. So the last clause above which ascribes the good glory of the Sole-Born, 
that is, God’s glory, to Christ seems to ascribes it to the Man conjoined, to use 
his term, to the Word. And as to ascribe any thing prerogative to the un- 
created Divinity to a creature, is a sort of creature service, and, besides, a robbery 
of God, for which cause Cyril anathematizes it in his Anathema VIIL., this pas- 
sage of Nestorius seems to have been set before the Synod to reveal the charac- 
ter of his creature-service. Compare Anointed, page 464, line 2, text above. 

(964). Matt. xxvii., 46; Mark xv., 34. 


(965). The Greek for ‘‘co-worker with the divine authority”? is ὡς τῆς θείας 
συνεργὸν αὐθεντίας, and the whole expression is, προσκυνῶ dé σὺν τή Θεότητι τοῦτον ὡς 
τῆς θείας συνεργὸν αὐθεντίας. Here Nestorius plainly confesses that he worships 
Christ’s humanity,a mere creature, as he himself again and again confesses, but, 
in effect, relatively to God the Word. He does not say merely that he is a co- 
worker w7th the divine authority, that is, with God the Word, but ‘‘ a co-worker 
of the divine authority,’’ that is, he makes that mere creature to share the divine 
authority of God the Word! a blasphemy, which was connected with Nestorius’ 
worship of that mere creature. But Cyril, in accordance with his do¢trine of 
Economic Appropriation, would Economically refer all the work done by God 
the Word through the Man put on, to God the Word Himself. In note 183, 
pages 81-85 in this work, St. Cyril refutes such language as resulting in exalting 
a creature to the prerogatives of God the Word and in worshipping that mere 
Man: see there. On pages 86-98 Cyril shows that Nestorius’ worship of Christ’s 
separate humanity with God the Word, results in Tetradism, that is, in wor- 
shipping Four instead of the Trinity, and is condemned in Scripture. See also 
Cyril’s Ecumenically approved language on pages 79-82, and 221-224. 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 467 


And after some other words, [he says]; 

‘That which was formed from a womb is not God by itself; that 
which was created by the Spirit is not God by itself; that which was 
buried in the tomb is not God by itself, for [if we had] so [said, and 
worshipped that Man as being Himself God] we should have been 
plainly SERVERS OF A MAN,and SERVERS OF A CorPSE. But precisely 
because God is in the Man taken, the Man taken is co-called God 
[with God the Word] from Him [the Word] who has taken him, in- 
asmuch as that man is conjoined to God the Word Who has taken 
him (966). 

[PASSAGE 15]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book of 
Nestorius, tetrad 777., against Heretics, where he ts speaking on the 
Spirit: 

— i es τ.-.|ὼ τ π᾿ 

(966). Coleti Conctlia, tome 3, col. 1079, Οὐ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ Θεὸς τὸ πλασθὲν ἀπὸ 
μήτρας" Ov Kal’ ἑαυτὸ Θεὸς τὸ κτισθὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος" ov καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ Θεὸς τὸ ταφὲν ἐπὶ 
μινήματος" ὄυτω γὰρ ἂν ἤμην ἀνθρωπολάτραι, καὶ νεκρολάτραι σαφεῖς, ἀλλ' ἐπειδήπερ ἐν τῷ 
ληφθέντι Θεὸς, ἐκ τοῦ λαβόντος ὁ ληφθεὶς, ὡς τῷ λαβόντι συναφθεὶς, συγ χρηματίζει Θεός, St. 
Cyril answers this in his δ σε- Βοοί Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
torius. 1 have quoted his language on pages 87-90 above. The Man-Service of 
this is too plain to need comment. It is vedative indeed, that is, for the sake of 
the Word ‘‘conjoined,’’ according to Nestorius, with Him, but this form of crea- 
ture-service, this crafty readoption of paganism did not escape the God-given 
insight of the Universal Church in this Ecumenical Synod, and it was justly 
condemned by it. No wonder that the Fifth Ecumenical Synod in its Definition 
brands that sin as ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is, Man-Service, that is, Man- Worship, 
and that it has set on Nestorius the Cain-Mark of being a murderer of the souls 
of his brethren by calling him ἀνϑρωπολάτρης, that is, Man-Server, that is Server 
ofa Man. Nestorius did not believe that God the Word’s Substance was in the 
Man but only His Spirit. See Cyrilon that above, pages 88, 89 and notes, 156, 
159, 160, I69, 171, 580, 582. 

Nestorius was superior to some in our own day who worship Christ’s hu- 
manity for 115 own sake, by admitting that it is wrong to worship the creature 
for its own sake, but he thought to evade the guilt of Wan-Service by putting 
forward the pretence that it is right to worship that creature because Of tts re- 
lation to God the Word. But the whole Synod condemned this revival of the 
dying paganism and the introduction of it into the Christian Church. Yet some 
in our day who wrongly call themselves Christians, commit the sin of Creature- 
Service by bowing to altars, images, relics, and other things, or by invoking 
martyrs, angels and other creatures velatively to God or more wrongheadedly 
still by giving acts of relative worship, such as bowing, kissing, incensing, burn- 
ing of lights, etc., to altars, images, relics, andto other things relatively to 
some mere creature, as, for instance, in Romish so-called Churches by bowing to 
St. Mary’s altar as itis called, and to that of St. Joseph, and by erecting such 
altars to acreature in God’s house, dressing up the idol of the Virgin or that of 
St. Joseph, capping to them, bending the knee to them, etc. 

7 


468 Act I. of Ephesus. 


For how, says he, can he be a servant (967) who operates in 
connection with the Father and the Son? And if any one should 
inquire as to the functions of the Spirit, he will find them not at all 
inferior to those of the Father and the Son; not that the One 
Divinity is parted, but that the Scripture of God divides the 
functions (968) of the One Power to each One of the Three Persons 
(969) separately, in order to show the equality, of the like Trinity. 
And consider, for my sake, the equality beginning from the works 
done in time. God the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among 
us (970). The Father made the humanity taken to sit down together 
with Himself; for He said, Zhe Lord satd unto my Lord, Sit thou at 
my right hand (971). ‘The Spirit came down and co-celebrated the 


De ra enn --....ὲ--ὄ-ἕ-ὃ-ς--------ο τ πο 


See how Cyril denounces as Man-Worship Nestorius’ language above, in 
the note on pages 87-90 of this volume, and indeed see that whole note 183, 
pages 79-128, and note 582, page 225. 

(967). Philip. ii., 7. 

(968). Or, ‘‘the things.” 

(969). Greek, xa¥ “εκάστην * * * ὑπόστασιν. 

(970).. John i., 14. 

(971). Matt. xxii., 44; Mark xii., 36; Heb. i., 13; Luke xx., 42, and Acts ii., 
34, 37. St. Cyril and the Orthodox make the above and similar texts to refer to 
the exaltation and session at the right hand of God the Father of God the Word 
after his voluntary self-abasement to the cross and to suffering for our sakes: 
see in proof the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius, pages 178-134, where Nestorius adduces this text and Cyril 
answers his cavil; and id., page 269 where Cyril condemns the error that a mere 
creature may co-sit with the Father and be co-throned with Him. St. Athana- 
sius uses the same text, Psalm cx., I, against the Arians to prove ‘‘ that even be- 
fore He was made Man He was King and Lord everlasting, being Image and 
Word of the Father.’ And then with reference to Peter’s language in A¢ts ii., 
36, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that 
name Jesus, whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ, words which the 
Arians had perverted to try to make Ged the Word to be a creature, St. Athana- 
sius adds: 

“Tt is very plain again that Peter did not say that the Substance of the Son 
was made, but spake of His Lordship over us, which came to pass when He was 
made man, and redeeming all men by the cross, because Lord of alland King of 
all.” See Passage 6 of Athanasius on pages 230, and 231, of volume lI. of Vzcaea 
in this Set. This is, in effect, St. Cyril’s view. So he teaches on Philippians ii., 
5-12 that the exaltation and worship there meant is to be asserted of God the 
Word, not of the Man in whom He was and is: see in proof in the index to 
Scripture in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set and in S. Cyril on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius, and under Scripture,page 390 in the General Index in the last 
named work, and in the Index to Scripture in this volume. 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 469 


glory of the Man taken; for, it says, When the Spirit of Truth ἐς 
come, He shall glorify me (972). 

[PassaGE 16]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
{of Nestorius], ¢e¢rad VI., where he ἐξ speaking in regard to Anointed 
ae he was sent to preach release to captives and restoration of 
sight to the blind (974). As the Apostle adds and says, that 7hat 
One was made the faithful High Priest to God (975), he was made; 
[therefore] he did not pre-exist eternally. He it was, O heretic, who 
progressed little by little into the dignity of High Priest(976). And 
hear a voice which shouts out this more clearly to thee: 

In the days, it says, of his flesh, when He had offered up prayers 
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able 
to save Him from death, and was heard because of his reverent fear; 
though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He 
suffered; and being made perfect (977), He became the Author (978) of 


(972). John xvi., 13,14. The great poison in this passage is the Man-Ser- 
vice contained in the idea of associating in worship a creature with God on His 
throne in heaven, and the Spirit’s coming down tu doxologize, that is, to worship 
the mere creature, that is, the mere Man taken. God the Word should be sub- 
stituted for Man in both places, (though God the Word is in that Man), and all 
the human things of that Man are to be ascribed Economically to God according 
to Cyril’s teaching. See on pages 215-224, and 268-286, text, in this volume, 
Cyril’s teachings as to the Son’s being glorified by the Spirit, and still more de- 
finitely against Nestorius’ error above in Cyril’s Anathemas VII. and VIII. and 
IX. on pages 329-333 in this volume. 

(973). That is, ‘‘“Chrzst,’’? Χριστοῦ. 


(974). juke iv., 18. 

(975). Heb. iii, 1, 2, The ‘‘appointed’’ of our Common Version, is 
““inade,’’ inthe Greek (ποιήσαντι). But our common rendering gives the sense, 
for God “‘ made’’ the Word High Priest in the sense of appointing Him to that 
high position. 

(976). The Nestorian assertion that Christ was imperfect at first in morality 
and that he progressed gradually in it is condemned by Anathema XII. of the 
Fifth Ecumenical Council. 


(977). Greek, τελειωϑεὶς, Compare τελειῶσαι ἴῃ Heb. ii., 10. “70 make * 
* * perfect’? isin the English Version. It may mean “‘ make complete.’? In 
the Vulgate of this last text it is rendered consummare, and in Heb. v., 9, by 
“‘consummatus.’’ The Vulgate is excellent on some points and accurate because 
Jerome sometimes translated, so far as he could, to avoid the cavils and perver- 
sions of such heretics as had appeared in histime. The fervfecéting here meant 
is not a growth from sin to holiness in Christ, for he knew no sin 11. Cor. v., 21: 
Heb. iv., 15, but a more thorough and complete preparation by suffering etc., to 
be our High Priest. 


470 Act I. of Ephesus. 


eee ao συ 


eternal salvation unto all those who obey Him (979). So he was per- 
fected (980) by progressing little by little, O heretic (981). And con- 
cerning that point John (982) cries out in the Gospels, Jesus progressed 
(983) a age (984), and in wisdom, and in favor (985). And Paul 
utters things in accordance with those words when he says, Beg 
made perfect (986) He became the author (987) of eternal salvation to all 
those who obey Him, being named by God High Priest after the order of 
Melchisedec (988). 

And after some other words, he says, ‘‘Called a High Priest’ (989). 
Why, therefore, dost thou expound contrary to Paul by mixing up 
the impassible God the Word with an earthly likeness, and making 
Him [that is, God the Word] a passible High Priest (990) ? 


ee ee LL. 


(978). Or, ‘‘ the Cause? 

(979). Heb. v., 7-10. 

(980). Or, “ completed.” 

(981). Does he apply this epithet to Cyril of Alexandria here? He seems to 
be arguing against his opinions. 

(982). Notes in col. 1069, 1070 of tome 3, of Coleti’s Concilia here state that 
“Mss. Regii,” have ‘John’ as above; that Marius Mercator has ‘‘and John,” 
as itis in the Greek: but that two Mss., Colbert and Turon, have ‘‘Luke,’’ and 
that the Bellov. has ‘John and Luke.” It isnot in John but in Luke. Nestorius 
committed an error here in quoting as to the name. 


(983). Luke it., 52, προέκοπτεν. 

(984). Greek, ἡλικίᾳ, which may be rendered ‘‘ iz stature’? also. 
(985). Greek, χάριτι. Ιλ 11., 52. 

(986). Or, ‘being completed,” or ‘‘ being consummated.” 

(987). Greek, αἴτιος, which may be rendered by ‘‘ Cause” also. 
(988). Heb. v., 9. 

(989). Heb. v., Io. 


(990). Nestorius here is attempting to prove, in accordance with the teach- 
ings of his master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, that at first Christ was an imperfect 
man morally and spiritually, but progressed so far as to become High Priest. 
The Twelfth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod exposes Theodore’s 
teaching on that point and anathematizes it. 


Besides Nestorius aims to rob the Word of His prerogative of being our High 
Priest and to ascribe that glory to the mere creature whom he put on. See the 
fifth note below. 


I did at first think that Nestorius might have used ‘“‘am impassible High 
Priest” instead of the last four words above, “a passible High Priest,’’ for I 
thought he was trying to accuse Cyril of denying to the High Priest the sympa- 
thies of our human nature of which Paul speaks in Hebrews ii., 9 to 18 inclusive 
and Hebrews iv., 15, 16. But the text is, I think perfectly correct, for the Nes- 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 411 


[PassaGE 17]. Another Passage, likewise from the same {Book 
of Nestorius], tetrad XV/J. (991). 


Wherefore, brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the 
Apostleand High Priest of our profession Jesus, Who was faithful to 
Him that made Him (992). 

And after some other words (he says], 

Because therefore he is our Sole High Priest, of the same 
[human] sufferings and of the same [human] family as we, and per- 
manent [in his High Priesthood], be not turned away from the faith 
in him. For he himself, the promised blessing of the seed of Abra- 
ham (993), was sent to offer the sacrifice of his body for himself and 
for the family [of man] to which he belongs. We must note that he 
[Paul], having confessed that every High Priest needs a sacrifice, 
and having made an exception of the Anointed One [in that respect] 
(994) as not needing one, says [nevertheless], in those utterances 
that he offered a sacrifice for himself and for the [human] family to 
which he belongs (995). 


torians were rather wont to accnse him of such errors as making the impassible 
divinity of God the Word subject to suffering and death, as here; for they were 
either ignorant or else wilfully ignored the fact that Cyril ascribed those things 
Economically only to God the Word to avoid serving the Man put on by God 
the Word. The Greek here is as follows: kai παϑητὸν ἀρχιερέα ποιῶν. 


(991). Anote in col. 1071, 1072, tome 3, of Coleti’s Comcilza tells us that this 
was numbered V. VII. in the old Version. 
(992). Heb. iii., 1, 2. The oldest manuscripts omit Christ in verse I. 


(993). Heb. iii., 16. See the old Testament for other passages on this topic. 
(994). Heb. viii., 3; Heb., iv., 15. The Greek here is τὸν Xpiorov, 


(995). The error of Nestorius in this passage is in ascribing the prerogative 
office work of God the Word to the man whom He put on and so leading men 
to serve that creature, the Man. The Universal Church, on the contrary, refers 
the things of that Man Economically to God to teach us to avoid Man-Service, 
that is, worshipping a Man. Hence it has approved even in this Third Synod, 
and in all the Synods after it the true do¢trine on this matter as contained in the 
Tenth of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas. See for further information on that topic 
what Cyril has written in defence of that Anathema. 


That Anathema differs from Nestorius, by teaching that Christ having no 
sin, did not need any offering. Hence He offered Himself for others, not for 
Himself. Nestorius’ notion implies one of two blasphemies: 

1. He ascribes to his merely human Christ, a mere creature, the work of 
redeeming men, which all Scripture teaches is prerogative to God the Word 
alone. For no mere creature can atone for his fellow creature’s sin. 

2. He leads men by his doctrine of redemption by a creature and of look- 
ing to a mere human High Priest, Advocate, and Intercessor above for help and 
salvation, to worship that creature by zzvocation which includes, as the word 


472 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[PASSAGE 18]. Another passage, likewise from the same [Book 
of Nestorius] tetrad IV. 


Hear therefore and give heed to the things which I am about 
to speak: He says, He that eateth my flesh (996); remember that this 
is said regarding the flesh, and that the expression ¢he flesh is not 
added by me, lest I seem to them to misinterpret: He that ealeth my 
flesh and drinketh my blood (997); he did not say, He that eateth my 
Divinity and drinketh It, but, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh 
my blood, abideth in me, and Lin him. 

And after some things more, | Nestorius adds:]; 

But with reference to the point before us, He that eateth my flesh 
and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and 7 in him (998), remember 
that this is said REGARDING THE FLESH. As the living Father hath 
sent me (999), me [he means the Man] who am visible to you (1000). 


means, prayer to him, thanksgiving to him and every other form of address, all 
which is creature worship, for no one but God the Word can be our High Priest 
and Intercessor on high to hear and answer our prayers and to receive our 
thanksgivings, for He alone possesses the prerogative and infinite attributes of 
God, omnipresence, ommniscienceond omnipotence. Surely any man of ordinary 
common sense should be able to see at once that His mere created humanity can 
not share these God-alone befitting and infinite attributes, and that Cyril's doc- 
trine against that blasphemy and against Man-Worship is right, and that the 
Church Universal in approving it at Ephesus was led by the Holy Ghost according 
to Christ’s promise to the Apostolate, that is, Episcopate. See on all those points.” 
the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation, St. Cyril’s 
five-Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book III., sections 
2, 6., id., pages 97, 119, 120. Compare pages 90 and 116. See further against 
the worship of Christ’s humanity page 212, Cyril’s Scholia, section 25; page 349, 
from Cyril’s first Book against Theodore; page 355, from Cyril’s Second Book 
against Theodore. And see also pages 71, 73, 74, 78, 79, 152, 197, 198, 210, 211, 
212, 340. It is wonderful how much there is in St. Cyril against the worship of 
Christ’s mere humanity, that is, against creature worship. One must however 
be on his guard against Pusey’s mistranslations in places as for instance, on 
pages 212, 213, where he renders homo theoforus, (θεοφόρος evidently in the 
Greek), by God-clad man, instead of by imspired man, as he should have done. 
Compare the Latin Version (the Greek is lost) on pages 543 and 544, Vol. VI. 
in P. E. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril of Alexandria’s works. In his Long Letter, 
pages 255 to 268 above Cyril well argues that Christ, the Sinless One, offered 
Himself not for Himself but for all other men. And that teaching being ap- 
proved by the Ecumenical Council is binding forever. 

(996). John vi., 56. 

(997). Ibid. 

(998). John vi., 56. 

(999). John vi., 57. 

(1000). Greek, τὸν φαινόμενον, The two words as the context shows, are 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 473 


But Isome times misinterpret [thou sayest]. Let us hear [then] 
something from the words which follow: As the Living Father hath 
sent 726, HE [Cyril?] SAYS THAT ‘me’ HERE MEANS THE DIVIN- 
Px, Bur [ ASSERT THAT IT “MEANS THE . HUMANITY 
(1001). Let us see who the misinterpreter is; Christ says, As the 
Living Father hath sent me (1002) and the heretic [Cyril ?] says that 
He means the Divinity [by ‘‘me’’| here. For in the clause, He 
hath sent me, (1003) he says that ‘‘ me’’ means God the Word. In 
this sense he [the heretic] understands the ‘‘me’’ in the expression, 
As the Living Father hath sent me (1004). And according to them 
the word ‘‘/’’ in the clause, And 7 live (1005), means God the Word, 
so that he understands the whole passage to mean, And 7 God the 
Word live by the Father. ‘Then forasmuch as after that expression 


used by Nestorius to designate his merely human Christ. For God the Word is 
invisible. And he would make out that all the eating and drinking in the 
Eucharist is of Christ’s mere humanity. As his own words show, he wrongly 
understood Cyril to teach the eating of the actual Substance of Christ’s Divinity 
in the rite. But Cyrilin note 606 above, pages 250-313, explains very clearly 
that he held no such error. But in response he justly charges Nestorius’ view 
of eating Christ’s real flesh and drinking His real blood as resulting in ’Av6pu- 
ποφαγία, that is,in Cannibalism: see that note. And the noteworthy thing is 
that the Universal Church in the Third Ecumenical Council approved St. 
Cyril’s teaching on that theme and condemned Nestorius’. So that the question 
is settled forever. The Spirit of God can not be contradif@ted. And it guided 
every decision of the Third Synod. And the attempt of the merely Western 
and therefore merely local Councils, the Fourth Lateran in 1215, that of Con- 
stance A. D. 1414 to 1418, and that of Trent A. D. 1545-1563, to annul and to 
do away the Holy-Ghost-led decisions of Ephesus are utterly null and void. 
The same is true of similar attempts against Ephesus which were made in local 
Councils in the East; as for instance in the idolatrous Conventicle of Nicaea 
A. D. 787 which represented only the idolatrous party in the Orient, and Rome 
and Italy; and the Synod of Jerusalem held A. D. 1672. 

Cyril especially answers the above passage 18 of Nestorius in the note on 
pages 251, 252, 260, 261, 262 and 267 above. 

(1001). On this see below note 1007, and above note 559, page 229, and 
note 606, pages 240 to 313, and see especially pages 250-313 against the real 
presence of Christ’s Divinity or humanity in the Eucharist, and against the 
error of eating Christ’s Divinity, and against that of eating Hisreal human flesh 
and drinking His real human blood in that rite, and against the error of wor- 
shipping Christ’s Divinity or humanity there. 

(i002); Johs: νἱ., 57. 

(1003). John vi., 57. 

(1004). John vi., 57. 

(1005). Ibid. 


474 Act I:  Ἰ ήξευξα, 


it says, And he that eatetn me, he also shall live (1006); I ask wHaT 
DO WE EAT, THE DIVINITY, or THE HUMANITY? (1007). 


(1006). Ibid. 


(1007). Ibid. Cyril in his /ive-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, Book IV., Section 3 and after, page 140 and after in the Oxford En- 
glish translation, replies to this very place, and shows that we do not eat actual 
flesh at all, and accuses Nestorius of holding to Cannibalism, (see the Oxford 
translation, page 142), and advocates what isin effect the ancient Symbolic- 
dynamic view of the Lord’s Supper. But of this I will treat in a separate Dis- 
sertation elsewhere in this Set. It was in effect restored by the blessed English 
Reformers, so far as its prohibition of Cannibal views of eating Christ’s actual 
flesh and blood in the Rite, and of the idolatry of worshipping the Divinity or 
the humanity of Christ there, are concerned, though an expression in the Cate- 
chism added after the time of the Reformers, to the effect that ‘‘ Zhe body and 
blood of Christ * * * are verily and indeed taken and received by the fatth- 
ful in the Lord’s Supper,’ needs to be changed for the language of St. Cyril 
in note 606, pages 240-313 above. And indeed all Cyril’s Eucharistic teaching 
should be followed and all the Anglican formularies literally and in sense con- 
formed to it. The Reformers did nobly, but on some matters we have fuller 
light, and especially on the Ecumenical decisions of Ephesus on the Eucharist, 
than they had, and we should profit by it. 


The Greek of the first part of this is clear, but the last part is not so clear. 
It is as follows: "AAA ἐπὶ τὸ προκείμενον" ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα, καὶ πίνων μου τὸ 
αἷμα, ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει, κἀγὼ ἐν αὑτῳ Μνημονεύετε ὅτι περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὸ λεγόμενον" καθὼς 
ἀπέστειλέ pe ὁ ζῶν Πατήρ, ἐμὲ τὸν φαινόμενον. ‘AAA’ ἐνίοτε παρερμηνεύω" ἀκούσωμεν ἐκ 
τῶν ἑξῆς" καθὼς ἀπέστειλε μὲ ὁ Cav πατήρ᾽ ἕκεινος λέγει τὴν Θεότητα, ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν ἀνθρω- 
πότητα. “ἴδωμεν τίς ὁ παρερμηνεύων" Καθὼς ἀπέστειλέ με 6 Cav Πατήρ" λέγει και ὁ αἱρετι- 
Koc, ἐνταῦθα τὴν Θεότητα λέγει" ἀπέστειλέ με, φησὶ, τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον" καθὼς ἀπέστειλέ μὲ ὁ 
ζῶν Πατήρ. κατ᾽ ἐκείνους, Kayo ζῶ ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος διὰ τὸν Πατέρα" εἶτα τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο, καὶ ὁ 
τρώγων με, κἀκεῖνος ζήσεται, τίνα ἐσθίομεν; τὴν θεότητα, ἢ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα; This Greek 
is given word for word exactly the same in the Collectio Regia of the Councils, 
tome 5, col. 516 and after. Its date is 1644. 


Cyril quotes this same passage in defending the Eleventh of his XTI. 
Anathemas against the Orientals. See it in col. 373, tome 76 of Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca. The Greek however varies somewhat from that given in 
Coleti as above. See the same place on page 358, Vol. VI., of P. EK. Pusey’s 
Greek; it is translated in this work on pages 272-274: Compare pages 250-254, 
267, and the Greek in Pusey. It looks very much as though some parts of 
Cyril’s reply there had been omitted in Migne’s edition or in his authorities, 
for it is shorter than the quotation in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod. 


There is also a Latin translation of the above passage of Nestorius in Act 
I. of Chalcedon, where the Greek of it was quoted but is now lost. It varies 
verbally here and there from the above, but the sense is not materially different 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 471 


[PassaGE 19]. Another Passage likewise from the same [Book 
of Nestorius], ée¢tvad XVJ., (1008): 


so far as dooma is concerned. See itin col. 1159 of tome 4 of Coleti’s Concilia. 
I quote it in full asin Coleti, comparing also and correcting by pages 361, 362 
of tom. 8, of the Collectio Regia (Paris, 1644): 


Audite igitur attendentes verba: Quz manducat, inquit, meam carnem. 
Memorate, quia de carne est quod dicitur et quia non a me additum est carnis 
nomen, ut non videar illis male interpretari: Qui manducat meam carnem, et 
bibit meum sanguinem. Numquid dixit, Qui manducat deitatem meam, et 
bibit deitatem meam? Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, 
in me manet, et ego in eo. ET POST ALIA. 


Sed ad propositum redeamus; Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum 
sanguinem, in me manet et ego in €o. Commemoramini quia de carne dicitur: 
Sicut misit me qui vivus est Pater, me, qui visibilis sum. Si forte male inter- 
pretor, ex his quae sequuntur, audiamus: Sicut misit me qui vivus est Pater; 
ille dicit deitatem, ego humanitatem. Videamus quis est qui male interpretatur: 
Sicut misit me qui vivus est Pater. Dicit haereticus; Hic divinitatem dicit. Misit 
me, inquit, Deum Verbum. Sicut misit me vivus Pater (secundum illos) et ego 
vivo Deus Verbum propter Patrem: deinde quod post haec est: Et gut me man- 
ducat, et ipse vive. Quem manducamus? Deitatem, aut carnem ? 


The Ancient Version (Antiqua Versio) gives this passage in briefer form, 
but dogmatically ofthe same purport. It is found in col.75 oftome 4 of Coleti’s 
Concilia. But the footnotes there show that in some manuscripts it is fuller 
and more closely corresponds to the Greek above. 


The version of it by Marius Mercator is found in col. 216 of the same tome 
4 of Coleti. I give these translations side by side. I will add notes to the 
Antigua Versio which gives us various readings of it. I find them in Coleti 
Conc., tom. 4, col. 75, 76, at the foot of the page. 


ANTIQUA VERSIO. VERSION OF MARIUS MERCATOR. 
Audite igiturintendentes dictis: QOuz Audite igitur et dicta diligenter in- 
manducat, inquit, (a) meam carnem et | spicite. Qutmanducat, inquit,carnem 
bibit meum sanguinem. Non dixit: | meam. Memento quod de carne 


Qui manducat meam deitatem. Qwuz | dicamus, et quod non a me carnis 
manducat meam carnem et bibit meum | nomen fingitur, ne videar illis falsus 
sanguinem, in me manet et ego im | interpres. Qut manducat, inquit, 
eum. carnem meam et bibit sanguinem 
ΕἼ post ALIA: Sed ad propositum, | em. Numquid dixit, Qui manducat 
Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit | deitatem meam, et qui bibit deitatem 
meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego | Meat ἢ Qui manducat carnem meam, 
in eum (b). Meministis quia de carne | δέ gut bibit sanguinenmt meum, in me 
est quod dicitur, Sicut misit me | Manet, et ego in ipso. 
vivens Fater, (c) me visibilem. Sed Et post ALIA: Sed ad procimenum 
forte aliter interpretatur? Audiamus | [προκείμενον, marginal mote here in 


476 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


And in brief, sazth he, if thou search all the New Testament 


de reliquis: Szcut misit me vivens 
fater. WHaereticus hic deitatem dicit: 
MMisitt me vivens Pater secundum illos, 
et ego vivo Deus Verbum propter 
Patrem. Deinde post hoc: £¢ gui 
manducat me, et tlle vivit. Quem 
manducamus, deitatem, an carnem? 


The notes to the above in Coleti 
Conc., tom. 4, col. 75,76, are as follows: 
I will here call them snbnotes to dis- 
tinguish them from my notes. 


SUBNOTE A. Meam carnem, Ita Codices 
Colbertinus et Turonensis et editio Contiana. 
In Bellovacensi legitur, meam carnem. Mem- 
entote quia de carne est quod dicitur, et quia 
a me non additur nomen carnis, ut non videar 
wllis contravia tinterpretart. Qut comedit 
carnem meam et bibit meum sanguinem, 
Num@gutd dixtt, Qui manducat, etc. Consen- 
tiunt autem haec cum textu Graeco et cum 
interpretatione Marii Mercatoris. 


SUBNOTE B. 
Mementote. 


Memintstis. Idem Codex: 


SUBNOTE C. Me wistbilem. WHaec duo vo- 
cabula desunt in eodem libro Bellovacensi; 
male, cum habeantur in Graeco contextu. 
Postea autem sequitur: 716 dicit dettatem, ego 
humanitatem. Videamus qui male interpreta- 
tur. Sicut mistt me vivens Pater,dicit haeret- 
tcus, hic dettatem dicit. Mistt me, ait, Deum 
Verbum. Misit me vivens Pater, secundum 
tllos; et ego vivo Deus Verbum propter Patrem. 


From the above three notes we see 
that the writer or writers of them 
seem to regard this Antigua Versio 
as an abbreviation rather than a full 
and complete translation of the Greek. 
The shortening of the passage makes 
the sense clearer, for Nestorius was 
verbose. Marius Mercator’s Version 
is nearer the Greek. 


Coleti] veniamus. Quit manducat 
carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem 
meum, in me manet, et ego in tpso. 
Mementote quod de carne dicamus. 
Sicut misit me vivus Pater, me qui 


appareo. Sed fortasse ego non re¢te 
interpretor. Videamus ex his quae 
sequuntur.  Szcut misit me vivus 


Fater: ille dicit deitatem, ego humani- 
tatem. Videamus qui sit pravus in- 
terpres. Szcut misit me vivus Pater: 
haereticus dicit quod deitatem hic 
misit me Deum Verbum. Sicut misit 
me vivus Puter, juxta illos, et ego vivo 
Deus Verbum propter Patrem. Quid 
postea. Qui manducat me, et ille vivet. 
Quid manducamus? Deitatem an 
carnem? 


I quote the last part of the Latin translation of the above Greek passage as 
it is in the parallel column in Coleti (Conc. tom. 3, col. 1071). It is by Theodore 
Peltanus a Jesuit (Colett Conc., tom. 3, col. 997, note 1), and reads thus: Verum 
ad id quod propositum est, revertamur: Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit 


meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo. 


Mementote, quod de carne 


verba hic fant, Sicut misit me vivens Pater: me, inquam, quem cernitis. Sed 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. ATT 


together, thou wilt in no wise find in it death ascribed to God, but 
either to Anointed (1009) or to Son or Lord (1010), for the expres- 
sions Anointed (1011) and Soz and Lord (1012) when they are used 
by Scripture regarding the Sole-Born (1013) are significative of the 
Two Natures: and they show at one time the Divinity, at another 
the humanity, and at another time both, as for instance when Paul 
in an Epistle proclaims as follows: When we were enemies we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son (1014), he shouts forth (1015) 
the humanity of the Son. If again the same [Apostle] says to the 
Hebrews, God hath spoken to us in the Son (1016), through whom 
also He made the worlds (1017), he shows the Divinity of the Son: 
for his flesh (1018) is not the Maker of the worlds, for it was made 
many ages after the worlds were created. 


aliquando perperam interpretor. Audiamus ex sequentibus: Szcut misit me 
vivens Pater. Tle divinitatem exponit, ego vero humanitatem. Jam videamus, 
quis perperam interpretatur. Szcut misit me vivens Pater. Uaereticus etiam 
dicit, Divinitatem hic exprimit: sensus est enim, J/iszt me Deum Verbum 
secundum illos, Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego Deus Verbum vivo propter 
Patrem. Deinde quod mox sequitur, Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet. Quid, 
quaeso, manducamus? Divinitatem ne, an humanitatem? 


Cyril, in book IV. of his /ive-Book Contradiétion of the Blasphemzes of 
Nestorius, quotes nearly all, if not all of the passages in the heretical sermons 
of Nestorius which bear on the Eucharist. Those sermons in Latin translations 
are in tome 48 of Migne’s Patrol/ogia Latina and in tom. VIII. of Gadland. 
Bibliotheca Vet. Patr., though the arrangement of the matter in them is not 
the same in both. See note 606, pages 240-313, where I have treated of the dif- 
ference between Cyril and Nestorius on the Lord’s Supper. See also Passage 
19, at the end, page 478 of this volume. 


(1008). A note in col. 1071, 1072 of tome III. of Coleti’s Concilza tells us 
that this is numbered XXIII. in a Bellov. Ms., but that other Manuscripts as 
well as Marius Mercator have the figures ‘‘ XVI.’’ 

(1009). Χριστᾷ. 

(1010). Κυρίῳ. 

(1011). Χριστὸς. 

(1012). Κύριος. 

(1013). Μονογενοῦς. 

(1014). Rom. v., 10; col. 1., 21, 22. 

(1015). Greek, βοᾷ. 

(1016). Heb. i., 1,2. Greek, ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Yid, This clause may be 
rendered, ‘‘ 22 the Son,’ or ‘‘ by the Son.” 

θῖν» Heb. 1 τ. 2 

(1018). Or, ‘‘ the flesh,’ ἡ oapé. 


478 Act I. of Ephesus. 


And after some things more, he adds, He did not hold James to 
be a brother of Deity (1019); nor do we tell on the death of God the 
Word when we feed on the Master’s blood and body (1020). 


(1019). This seems a reference to Galat. i., 19. 


(1020). We have seen in note 606 above, pages 250-313, that neither Cyril 
of Alexandria, the Orthodox, nor Nestorius, the heresiarch, held to the real 
presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist. On the con- 
trary, both expressly deny it, as they deny also the blasphemy that God the 
Word died, and the further blasphemy that His Divinity is eaten in the rite. 
The error of this passage of Nestorius consists in dividing the Natures by deny- 
ing the Incarnation, as Cyril so often speaks, and so in laying the foundation 
for worshipping the separate humanity of Christ, and so for bringing in Man- 
Service. Cyril, of course, as he often shows, teaches that God the Word is not 
subject to suffering or death, but he held that all the sufferings and death of 
the Man put on should be ascribed economically to God the Word, both to 
avoid leading the people to pray to that creature for help and so to avoid crea- 
ture service, and to preserve to the infinitely superior because Divine Nature in 
the Son, Its own rightful preeminence and prerogative. But Nestorius here 
perverts the facts and tries to misrepresent Cyril, for he especially hated the 
doétrine of Economic Appropriation and the Orthodox. For instance, he 
seems to imply that Cyril held that God the Word died. And again, wrongly 
supposing that Cyril was a One-Natureite Apollinarian, and that he held that 
all of His humanity had been changed into Divinity, he says, ‘‘ He did not 
hold James to be a brother of Deity,” or ‘‘of Divinity.” But Cyril, as his 
writings abundantly show, held to the Two Natures of Christ. Indeed, he 
expressly receives that expression in his Epistle to John of Antioch, which was 
approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. And he wrote against the Synou- 
siasts, that is, Co-Substancers, and denounced their Monophysite erfor. See 
Fragments of his work against them on pages 363 to 378 in the Oxford transla- 
tion of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. There- 
fore Cyril did not hold that flesh can be a brother of Divinity, for the Natures 
are dissimilar; but he did hold that the humanity put on by the Word was of 
the same nature as James. 


The Greek of the last part of the above is as follows: οὐδὲ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου 
καταγγέλλομεν θάνατον, τὸ Δεσποτικὸν αἷμά τε Kal σῶμα σιτούμενοι. 

(1021). These words uttered in the hearing of the assembled Synod, show 
how novel was Nestorius’ denial of the Incarnation of the Word, and his service 
to the Man put on by the Word, and his perversions of the Eucharist. No one 
contradicts the speaker as though he had told a falsehood. And the bishops, 
let us remember, had come from Europe, Asia and Africa, and there were deleg- 
ates from the West as well as from the East. 


Another thing may be of interest to scholars, and deserves to be mentioned 
here. It is that Rabi Baba, as he signs himself, a Protestant of Nestorian de- 
scent who was in New York City, in August, 1893, trying to publish a DiCtionary 


Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 479 


[PASSAGE 20]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
[of Nestorius], te‘rad XX///: 


I notice, sazth he, that our people possess much reverence and a 
most fervent piety, but they err because of their lack of godly 
knowledge on the dogma. But this should not be made a matter of 
accusation against the people, but (how should I say it well and 
fitly ?) it is owing to the fact that the teachers have no fitting time, 
and do not put before you any of the more accurate opinions. 

Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and chief of the Secretaries, said, 
Behold, HE OPENLY SAYS IN THOSE PASSAGES THAT NONE OF 
THE TEACHERS BEFORE HIMSELF SPAKE TO THE PEOPLE THOSE 
THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF HAS SPOKEN (1021). 

Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: Since the things said by Nes- 


of the Syriac, told me, as did Rev. Mr. Labarree formerly of the Presby- 
terian or Congregational Mission among the Nestorians, that there exists 
in the Syriac a translation of Nestorius’ writings which has never been pub. 
lished. If it could be translated and published in English it might, if it faithfully 
represents the Greek original, give us the contexts of the above 20 Passages and 
serve to make stillclearer Nestorius’ heresies. Who will give it to usin the 
Syriac andin the English version? 


(1022). Those twenty passages of Nestorius form his accusation. The 
sentence follows a little fartheron. The criterion of judgment is the historic 
faith of the Church from the beginning as attested by Scripture interpreted by 
the Fathers in the passages quoted above. See the Appendix on those Passages. 


(1023). The extent of the jurisdi@ion of Carthage was so great that it 
might in later times be deemed Patriarchal, for it included all the provinces of 
Latin Africa. But the Patriarchates were at first nothing but greater Metro- 
political jurisdictions. That which may be said to constitute each civil Diocese 
into a Patriarchate is Canon VI. of the Second Ecumenical Synod. So Socrates 
states in Chapter 8 of Book V. of his Ecclesiastical History. And yet from the 
time of the First Ecumenical Synod and before, the See of Alexandria was over 
the Diocese of Egypt. See its Canon VI. And Antioch was over the Diocese 
of the East; and the Metropolitical rights of both Alexandria and Antioch are 
guaranteed in that Canon as no new thing, but as long established and as com- 
ing under the head of ‘ancient customs,’’ So as far back as Cyprian’s time in 
the third century the right of Carthage to ecclesiastical headship over all the 
provinces of Latin Africa was a thing admitted there, and it is in general terms 
approved and guaranteed in Canon VI. of Nicaea in the words, ‘‘ Jz the other 
provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to the churches.’’? ‘The summons to 
attend the Council of Ephesus, as Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, says in its Act 
I, ‘‘was written Zo each of the Metropolitans”’ (see page 32 above, text, and note 
73, there). The Emperor’s Letter of Summons to Cyril of Alexandria is 
addressed ‘‘/o Bishop Cyril’ (see page 33 above, text), and he is ordered to 
take with him ‘‘a few most holy Bishops of the Province which is under him, 
as many as he may approve, to run together to the same city’’ (Ephesus). 


480 Act I. of Ephesus. 


torius are HORRIBLE AND BLASPHEMOUS, and our ears do not endure 
to be polluted by them any longer, let every part of his BLASPHEMY 
be inserted in the Acts, for an ACCUSATION against him who has 
taught those things (1022). 


Here is no mention of any Fatriarch or ,fPatriarchate, but only of Bishop, 
Metropolitan, and the Province. And the jurisdiction of each Metropolitan 
was called a Province. So far as appears from the words on page 32 above, the 
Imperial Letter of Summons was written to no others than ‘‘ each of the Metro- 
politans.’’? Hence when the Bishop of Rome was summoned, and the Bishop of 
Carthage, and the Bishop of Constantinople, and the Bishop of Antioch, and 
the Bishop of Jerusalem, he was summoned merely as a Metropolitan, not as 
what in later times was termed a Patriarch. Butina document pertaining to 
the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, we shall find the title Patriarch given to 
some Bishops. And as a matter of fact at this time and long before, the Metro- 
politan of Alexandria had under him, as we see by Canon VI. of JVicaea, 
““‘ Foypt, Libya, and Pentapolis,’’ but its bishop was then the only Metropolitan 
in all Egypt, though Ammianus Marcellinus of the fourth century tells us that 
‘‘ Egypt had at all times three provinces [he means civil provinces], Egypt it- 
self, Thebais, and Libya, to which, in after times, two others were added; 
Augustamnica, which was severed from Egypt, and Pentapolis from Libya. 
After the time of Marcellinus the division into provinces was again altered, so 
that the number of provinces rose to nine’’ (Wiltsch’s Geography and Statis- 
tics of the Church, English translation, vol. 1, page 188). ‘‘ Several Metropol- 
itan seats arose at the beginning of the fifth century. Thus Synesius was 
raised about 410, by the patriarch Theophilus, to the dignity of Metropolitan of 
Ptolemais, and in the imperial proclamation at the Second Synod of Ephesus in 
449, Dioscurus received the command to appear with ten metropolitans ”’ 
(Wiltsch, id., page 192). Butas yet I have seen no definite proof on the point, 
as to whether each of those metropolitans had his own provincial Synod wader 
him, or whether they all met in the Council of Alexandria alone. On that see 
Bingham’s Aztig., Book, II., Chap. 17, Section 85. The fact is that the whole 
Civil Diocese of Egypt was uuder Alexandria, and it was one national Egyptian 
Church. So each of the two other sees specified in Canon VI. of Nicaea, Antioch 
and Rome, may be said to have been the head ofa national or race Church, Anti- 
och of that of Syria and the Syrians, and Rome ofthe Italian Church, in the seven 
provinces of South Italy, and the three Italian islands of Sicily, Sardinia and 
Corsica. See on Rome’s original jurisdiction Bingham’s Axztiguzties, Book 
IX., Chapter 1, sections 9, Io, 11 and 12. Compare notes 25 and 26 above. So 
in modern times London should be the Patriarchal see of all England, Paris of 
France, Berlin of Germany, Washington or New York of the United States, 
Mexico of the Republic of Mexico, etc. Sometimes we shall find a race Patri- 
arch, like, for instance, him of Alexandria, extending his sway over part of 
some race other than his own, as, for instance, in Arabia, but such unnatural 
subjection in ecclesiastical affairs of part of one nationality to another, has 
generally been brought about— 


Reading of the Letter of Capreolus of Carthage. 481 


Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and chief of the Secretaries, 
said, The most reverent and most God-worshipping Metropolitan 
(1023) and Bishop of Carthage, Capreolus, has written by Besula 
the Deacon,an Epistle to this Holy Synod, which, if your God-wor- 
shippingness will command, I will read. And I will read also the 
translation of it. 

To the most God-worshipping and most blessed fellow-ministers, 


come together from every quarter into the Synod, Capreolus (1024) 
a Bishop, wisheth joy in the Lord. 


1. By the fact that the subject aliens were of inferior civilization, as in 
that case, and as in the case of the subjection of Abyssinia to Alexandria; the 
newly converted and uncivilized Saxons and Germans, etc., to Rome, the newly 
converted and uncivilized Bulgarians and Servians, and Roumanians and Rus- 
sians to Constantinople, but such unnatural subjection of one people to another 
in ecclesiastical affairs has generally lasted for a shorter or longer time only, 
and the yoke has generally been shaken off when the subject nation became 
civilized and powerful enough to realize the fact that Christ has made all 
Christians equals and brothers and none of them slaves to another, and that 
each people should best guard its own Metropolitical and Patriarchal rights in 
religion, and in language, and its own race interests. 

Or, 2, such unnatural and anti-national and oppressive subjection of one 
nation to another in the Christian religion, and the supreme control and man- 
agement of its own affairs by an alien Metropolitan or Patriarch has come from 
the fact that one race has been brought under the secular sway of another, as, 
for instance, when Spain, Gaul, Britain, or any other people outside of Italy 
came under the secular sway of Rome, and the claim to Appellate JurisdiGion 
on the part of the Roman see was enforced by the Roman Emperor, as, for 
instance, by Valentinian III., (see page 395, vol. 1 of Smith’s Gieseler’sChurch 
fiist., and Gibbons’ Rome, chap. 35, page 32, note, Bohn’s 7 vol. edition), or, 
on the other hand, when Sicily and Bari, for instance, which originally were 
under the Roman see, came under the secular sway of the Emperors of Con- 
stantinople, and the claim to Appellate Jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople 
was enforced by the Eastern Emperors. 

Or, 3, sometimes a zation became subject toa Patriarch, foreign in race and 
tongue to themselves when they settled in his Patriarchate and became Chris- 
zans. For instance, in the seventh century the Bulgarians settled in Thrace, 
one of the Civil Dioceses given to the Bishop of Constantinople by Canon 
XXVIIL., of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, in the ninth became Christians 
and became subject to a greater or less extent to his see. But there was more 
or less clashing between the two races, the Bulgarians and the Greeks, and 
finally the Bulgarians with the spread of education and of race feeling, and with 
the desire for independence from Turkey, have desired to be independent also of 
the Greek See of Constantinople, and now have anautonomous national Church 
of their own. 


482 Act I. of Ephesus. 


I would,(1025) most reverent brethren, that your to be bewed to. 


4. Sometimes a fragment of a conquered nation, as for instance North 
Africa,zz its weakness, tosome extent seems to have lost its former independence 
as for instance Carthage after its subjugation by the Mohammedans in its rela- 
tions to Rome, and the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in their rela- 
tions to Constantinople, after their subjection to the Arabs. 

5. Another cause of the subjection of a Christian nation to a foreign bishop. 
in their Church affairs was the fact that in an ignorant age the Western nations 
were led to give Rome the power of Appellate Jurisdiction in their bounds, con- 
trary to the Ecumenical Canons, because they were deceived by the imposture of 
the False Decretals, which from the ninth century till the sixteenth were gen- 
erally regarded, butin the West only, as genuine; (see Szzth’s Gieseler’s Church 
Fiistory, page 117, note 18 especially, and the whole context, pp. 109-119). They 
bore down the opposition of Hincmar of Rheims who had stood up for the sway 
of the Nicene Canons in France, (see S7zth's Gieseler’s Church History, vol. 2, 
pages 121-125 and pp. 109-119)ὲ. During the idolatrous middle ages both Rome 
and Constantinople, the Old Rome and the New, corrupted with their spiritual 
harlotry of creature worship and image worship the nations over whom they 
exercised power, but Rome went further and by forcing on the deceived and 
oppressed nations of the West, in the service her own tongue, which they did 
not understand, kept them in ignorance and in spiritual and mental darkness, 
and hindered the development of their native tongues, their knowledge of God’s. 
Word that giveth light and understanding to the simple, and salvation, the de- 
velopment of their literature and their civilization, and all thosesciences and 
trades which need a native literature in order to be well and profitably described 
and understood. Surely if there is one lesson which every people ought to know 
and to remember and to profit by it is that they should permit no foreign pre- 
late to take away from their own native prelates their right and duty to judge 
all cases iu doctrine and in morals among their own people, and not to permit 
any foreign bishop to exercise Appellate Jurisdiction over any of them, or to 
substitute a foreign tongue for their own in the services or to introduce idolatry 
and the worship of creatures among them. If the long centuries of superstition, 
idolatry and degradation and woe under which we groaned, and the cost of 
our emancipation are forgotten, and our blessings by it, we deserve the severest 
punishments. 

On the whole subject of MWetropolitans and Patriarchs see in Bingham’s 
Index under those words and Primates. Under Primates he shows what the 
powers of the Metropolitan, that is, as we say in later times, Patviarch of Carth- 
age were. Smith's Gieseler’s Church History, volume I., pages 371-397 has. 
valuable quotations from ancient documents on the Patriarchs. On pages371, 
372 he makes Canon VI. of Nicaea to be a confirmation of Patriarchal power. 
See alsoid., pages 495-506. Wiltsch in his Geography and Statistics of the 
Church, English translation, pages 56-59, and 138-145, shows that in the sense 
of having several provinces under him the Bishop of Carthage was in effect what 
we now calla Patriarch, till the almost complete destruction of the African 
Church by the Mohammedans in the 7th and 8th centuries. 


Reading of the Leiter of Capreolus of Carthage. 483 


Synod (1026) might be celebrated (1027) in such a state of affairs, 
as that we also might send, not an excuse which deserves to be 
lamented, but rather a delegation (1028) of our brethren and Fellow- 
Bishops selected by common consent and judgment; but different 
causes have hindered our wish. For in the first place the Letter of 
our Master and Son, the most religious Emperor Theodosius, which 
has come to our hands is of such a tenor as specially asks for the 
presence of our brother and Fellow-Bishop, Augustine of blessed 
memory. But the letter aforesaid was not at all able to find him 
alive (1029). Wherefore I, who received the same Imperial notifi- 
cation which has been sent, although it seemed to be sent especially 
to the aforesaid [Augustine], wished to gather, by suitable letters, 
with the accustomed expressions, a fit (1030) Synod in all the prov- 
inces of Africa (1031) in order that some should be selected from 


It is acurious fact that the Bishop of Constantinople in the middle ages 
till the discovery of America in A. D. 1492, had a wider sway than Rome; for he 
had not only Thrace, which is the only European Diocese given him in Canon 
XXVIII. of Chalcedon, but also Eastern Illyricum, Macedonia, and Greece, 
Servia, Roumania and all Russia: So that even in Europe he controlled more 
territory, not more souls there, than Rome. Besides he had the Dioceses of 
Asia Minor and Pontus in Asia, and practically controlled to a greater or less 
extent all the other Eastern Patriarchates. And he actually went so far as to 
appoint for a long time Greek Bishops to some Slavic sees, a thing which was 
not just nor right and which no Slavic people would stand to-day. 


(1024). Capreolus was thesuccessor of that famous Aurelius who defended 
the liberty of Africa from the claim of Rome to Appellate Jurisdiction there. 
Here we see a second great Patriarchal See of the West represented as well as 
Rome the first. In a future real Seventh Ecumenical Synod to do away with 
idolatry and superstition, may we see all the great sees of the West represented, 
and thoroughly Orthodox in all do¢trine, discipline and rite, that they may be 
fit for it. 


Capreolus seems to have been strong for the do¢trine of Orthodoxy against 
Nestorian views. See the article on him in Smith and Wace’s Didtionary of 
Christian Biography. 

(1025). Or, ““7 was wishing,” or *‘ I could wish,’’ or “‘ would that,” or “I 
would pray.’? Ἡὐχόμην is the Greek. 


(1026). The bowing here meant is of course, not worship, but the bowing 
of mere human respect, by living men toliving men. So in everysuch mention 
of the Synod in the above Letter. 

(1027). Greek, συγκροτηθῆναι, 

(1028). Greek, πρεσβείαν. 

(1006)... τ; “7.2 thes. 7276." 

(1030). Or, “ὦ concurring.’ 


484 Act I. of Ephesus. 


the number of our brethren and Bishops and should be sent to the to 
be bowed to Synod of vour Blessedness (1032). But inasmuch as 
the entrance into the side roads is not open, for the hostile multitude 
is spread abroad, and thereis a wide ravaging of the provinces, 
which, the inhabitants being either wiped out or fugitives, present a 
miserable and extensive spectacle of desolation long and wide, these 
facts lessen opportunities of travelling and of communication (1033). 
Owing to these hindrances therefore, the Bishops of the circle of 
Africa have not been able to come together at all to one place. To 
these facts is to be added the fact that the Imperial Letter came to us 
in the days of the Pask, when an interval of hardly two months re- 
mained before the meeting of all your to be bowed to Synod. ‘That 
period of time would hardly suffice even for the Synod in Africa 
to assemble, even though no such difficulty from enemies as now 
exists happened to be here. Hence although we have not been at 
all able to send delegates (1034), nevertheless out of due respect for 
ecclesiastical discipline, I have sent, O brethren to be bowed to, my 
son Besula, the deacon, with this letter of excuse. Wherefore I ask 
your Holiness, although I believe that by our God’s special help 
the Universal Faith will be unshaken and firm in all respects by 
means of so great a Synod of to be bowed to Priests (1035), that by 
the operation of the Holy Ghost, which we believe will be present 
in all your hearts in the things to be done, ye thrust away by the 
power of the ancient authority the new doctrines which before this 
time were unknown to Churchly ears, and that so ye oppose the 
errors of whatsoever sort they be; lest, under pretext of a second 


(1031). The six provinces under what we may term the Patriarchal throne 
of Carthage were, Byzacene, Africa Proconsularis, Numidia, Mauritania Sitifensis, 
Mauritania Caesariensis and Tingitana. 


(1032). This title and several others in the singular are collective for the 
whole Ecumenical Council. 


(1033). The reference here is to the Vandals who at this time were devas- 
tating Latin Africa and who finally conquered it, including Carthage itself. The 
cause of this curse isto be found in the threats of God to punish idolaters, and 
the fact that on the side of the Africans themselves there was grievous idolatry 
at this time. Augustine in his work on the Morals of the Catholic Church, 
Chap. xxxiv., states ‘‘7have known many worshippers of pictures and of sepul- 
chres,’’ and he laments the fact. And as he had seen the abuse and idolatry 
which followed the putting of images into the Church he might well say, ‘‘/¢ zs 
a wicked thing to putan image into a temple of God.’ See page 25 of the Ox- 
ford translation of Augustine’s Short Treatises, and what is quoted from him in 
Tyler on Jmage-Worship, pages 198-206. 

(1034). Greek, πρέσβεις. 

(1035). Onthis term Priests see note 95, page 39 above, and note 1036 


below. a 


Reading of the Letter of Capreolus of Carthage. 485 


discussion, that way of [heretical] speaking which was disapproved 
and abolished some time ago may seem to renew those against whom 
the Church has warned aforetime, and in these times in which they 
have sprung up again, whom both the authority of the Apostolic 
See and the Priestly vote (1036) agreeing in one [aim and do¢trine] 
have crushed. For if, perchance, anything arises which is new, 
there is need of investigation in order that what is said may be either 
approved, or that it may be condemned and repelled. But if any 
one permits those matters regarding which a decision has long since 
been given, to be discussed a second time, he himself will seem to 
be nothing but a doubter in regard to the faith which has hitherto 
prevailed (1037). Therefore for the sake of the example to poster- 
ity, that those things which have already been decided on behalf of 
the Universal Faith may be able to have perpetual confirmation, 
those things which are already decreed by the Fathers are to be 
kept and guarded. For whosoever wishes those things which he 
would decree for the Universal Stability to remain perpetually, 
ought to confirm whatsoever he thinks, not [merely] by his own 
authority but also by the vote and sentence of those more ancient: 
so that thus proving whatsoever he has asserted, as well by the 
more ancient as by the newer decisions,~-he may make it clear that 
he himself speaks and teaches and holds fast the sole-born (1038) 
truth of the Universal Church which has come down in simple purity 
and in unconquerable authority from the past times to the present, 
that is, toours. These things we suggest, at this time, to your to 
be bowed to ears (1039) instead of [sending] a present delegation 
from Africa, which the necessity aforesaid has not permitted us to 


(1036). Priest is often used by the ancients for Bishop. Here Priestly 
means £piscopal, for Bishops alone could vote in the Councils. The reference 
is to the Pelagian and Arian heresies, the last of which was professed by the 
Vandals then desolating Africa: both of which heresies had been condemned by 
Rome and the bishops of the whole Church, East and West. Canon I. of Ephe- 
sus condemns Pelagianism, for Celestius wasa Pelagian. Rome isthe Apostolic 
see meant. If Apostolic Sees were the original reading (and as we will show 
elsewhere Romish editors have substituted Apostolic See for Apostolic Sees in 
an Epistle of Augustine),the reference would be toallsuch sees. See on their in- 
fluence Tertullian ox Prescription, section 36, pages 485-488 of the Oxford 
translation. Apostolic See is the only lection here given. 

(1037). This was the sin of the creature invokers and image servers in the 
eighth century who brought in those abominations after they had been con- 
demned by the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth, and so wrecked the 
Eastern Church and much of the Western which adhered to those sins, and 
wiped out so many hundreds of episcopates and so many millions of people. 

(1038). Greek, μονογενῇ τῆς Καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 

(1039). This is not the wisest sort of an expression. But the Universal 


486 Act I. of Ephesus. 


send; [at the same time] especially beseeching [you] to consider our 
calamities in affairs and in the times, and not to ascribe our absence 
to any pride or indifference, but rather to that foreevident necessity. 

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said, Let the Epistle [just] read of 
the most reverent and most dear to God Bishop of Carthage, Capre- 
olus, which has a plain meaning, be also inserted into the Records 
[of the Acts] to [show their] good faith [and fairness (1040)]. For 
he (1041) wishes on the one hand, the ancient dogmas of the faith 
to be confirmed, and on the other, those things which are novel and 
absurdly invented and impiously said to be disapproved and 
cast out. 


All the Bishops shouted out, These are the voices of all! We all 
say these things. ‘This is the wish of all. 


Sentence passed upon Nestorius, deposing him- 


The Holy Synod said: Forasmuch as in addition to the other 
things, the most impious Nestorius was not willing to obey our 
summons [to him], and besides did not receive the most holy and 
most God-revering Bishops, who had been sent by us, we [therefore | 
necessarily proceeded to the examination of the impieties committed 
by him (1042). And inasmuch as we found out in regard to him, both 
from his letters and writings and from the things lately said by him 


Church is not to be held responsible for such obzter diéta, for she never approved 
them, but only the doctrinal clear sense of the letter as Cyril in effect says 
further on above. 

(1040). Greek, * * * ἐπιστολὴ * * * ἐμφερέσθω τῇ πίστει τῶν ὑπομνη- 
μάτων. I understand Cyril to mean by this that he would have Capreolus’ Letter 
to the Synod inserted into its Acts to show that the Council had acted in good 
faith in claiming to be an Ecumenical Synod and to represent the whole 
Church, the West as well as the East, and its belief on do¢trine. For it had 
present a representation of the greatest part of the Orient, as well as written 
utterances from the then two greatest Western sees, Rome and Carthage. And 
we shall find Rome represented by its legates farther on. In this respect 
the Synod forms a striking contrast with the Conciliabulum of the Nestorians 
at Ephesus which did not have one Orthodox Bishop present from the West and 
which represented only asmall part of the East, and all those partisans of an 
anti-Incarnation and Man-Worshipping heretic. 

(meqn).. Oey erars? 

(1042). They ‘‘xecessarily proceeded’? according to Christ’s express law 
laid down in Matt. xviii., 15-21, as to matters between Bishops; for Bishops are 
Apostles in order, as I show elsewhere in this Set. Besides that, the canons lay 
down that mode of procedure. See note below. 


Sentence of the Council on Nestorius and His Impieties. 487 


in this very metropolis (1043) and testified to, in addition, that he 
thinks and preaches impiously; and forasmuch as we are necessarily 
pressed both by the Canons (1044) and by the Epistle of our most 
holy father and fellow-minister Celestine the bishop of the Church 
of the Romans (1045) we have [therefore] come, often weeping, to 
the sad sentence against him (1046). Therefore our Lord Jesus 


(1043). Ephesus, where the Council was held. 


(1044). Hefele (Histury of the Church Councils, English translation, vol. 3, 
page 51) thinks that canon 74 of the so-called Apostolical Canons is here re- 
ferred to. That is in effect a putting into Canon-form of what Christ said only 
to the Apostolate, that is, the Episcopate, in Matt. xviii., 15-21, as the Church, 
judged by its practice, understood it from the beginning. See what I have writ- 
ten in this Set elsewhere on those points. 


(1045). TheSynod mean that the first Bishop of the Church representing 
part of Italy, and the majority of the East having made a decision of the whole 
Church, orthe bulk of it, which practically amounts to the same thing, and the 
Canons and whole Church thus calling upon them to check the spreading cancer 
of Nestorius’ errors and heresies, and to save the faith and the Church, TREY 
deemed it obligatory to do so. 


(1046). These words uttered by the whole assembly show how false the 
charge is that these two hundred Bishops all acted from envy or mere personal 
hatred of the heretic; and, on the other hand, his own unbrotherly, rough and 
unmannerly conduct towards them by their messengers, shows how much he 
was swayed by what is wrong and forms an unpleasant contrast to the Council’s 
treatment of him, every step of which was strictly canonical, and according to 
the laws laid down and held fast to in the Church from the beginning. Notice 
the fairness of the Synod and the unfairness of Nestorius and his friends and 
partisans. The Metropolitans of the whole Empire were invited. That would 
secure a representation of the whole Church and so the decision would be what 
was aimed at, the voice of the Universal Church. Rome, taught by Cyril’s and 
Nestorius’ writings, and the whole West were one, as we learn from the writings 
of Capreolus of Carthage and Vincent of Lerins. The bulk ofthe East, represent- 
ed by the Two Hundred Bishops, were of the same mind against the heresiarch. 
Even with the Bishops of the Conciliabulum he had only about forty Episcopal 
supporters at Ephesus and these represented only a small part of the Church. 
If they had all sat in the Ecumenical Synod they could not have cast more than 
about one-sixth of the whole vote. There would have been about five votes 
against Nestorius to one in his favor, and that would not have altered the result. 
Besides the local Council of Egypt and that of Rome had spoken against the 
heresiarch before. Hence he began from the start at Ephesus to hedge and to 
dodge. He refused canonical citations knowing what steps according to the 
Canons were likely to follow. He usessoldiers and the secular power to hinder 
the Council’s work. The Council tries him, as it was compelled to do by his 
obstinate refusals to appear, in his absence. And everything was done fairly 


488 ich ἢ Ephesus: 
Anointed Who has been blasphemed by him, has decreed, through 
the present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is an alien 
from the Episcopal dignity and from every Priestly assembly. 


and canonically. The Creed of the First Synod is read. Itis acriterion. The 
faith of the Universal Church East and West is set forth in many quotations 
from ‘Twelve Fathers, representing both sections. Then Nestorius’ own writ- 
ings and utterances are examined and found to be heretical because 


1. They dented the Incarnation of God the Word, and 


2. Taught service to His humanity by bowing, etc., which, of course, 1s 
CREATURE-SERVICE, and areturn to the fundamental error of paganism, and, 
as Cyril again and again teaches, a plain violation of Christ's primary Law on 
Worship, set forth in Matthew iv., ro: see note 183 above, page 103 and the con- 
text. See also under that text in the Index to Holy Writ in this work. 


Passages of Nestorius above which deny the Inflesh are I, 2, 3, 4, and 7. 
Compare Passages 11 and 12. Passage 7 seems to belong here and with the 
Passages in the next sentence below. 


Passages which teach worship to Christ’s mere humanity either dy gzving it 
the name of God or by giving toit that dignity of Divine Sonship which ts pre- 
rogative to God the Word, or by giving bowing to it, the most common of the 
acts of religious service and so standing for them all, are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 
and I5. 


3. Another error for which Nestorius was condemned was for what St. 
Cyril, his opponent, terms zs avtpwrogayia, that is, his CANNIBALISM on the 
Eucharist: See Passage 18 from him on page 472 above. This doctrine of a 
real presence and a real eating of Christ’s flesh and blood in the rite was associated 
in the mind of his chief champion Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and presumably 
in his own, with their worship there by a one nature Consubstantiation, that 
is, by that of the human nature alone with the bread and wine: see note 606 
above, pages 240-313, and especially pages 250-313. On pages 276-313 I have 
shown ¢he difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius as to the Worship of the 
Eucharist: see there. 


4. Nestorius was condemned for denying the fundamental doctrine of 
Economic Appropriation, that is, as St. Athanasius approved by St. Cyril ex- 
plains it, the Economic Appropriation of the sufferings, death and the other 
peculiarly human things of Christ’s humanity to God the Word éo prevent the 
worship of a mere creature, that is, His humanity, and to teach men to look in 
Christ to the omnipresent and omniscient Word who is very God, and to wor- 
ship Him alone in the Son, by prayer, and the other acts of worship. See 
Athanasius and Cyril as quoted on this matter in volume 1 of /Vicaea in this 
Set, pages 237-240, and all the utterances in the context there of St. Athanasius. 
and St. Epiphanius against Creature-Worship, and anticipatively against the 
Nestorian worship of Christ’s mere humanity. Those of the twenty dlasphem- 
ous Passages of Nestorius, which are against the doctrine of Economic Appro- 
priation are 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, Il, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19. 


Signatures of the Bishops. 489 


I, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, have subscribed, defining to- 
gether with the Holy Synod, (1047). 

I, Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, have subscribed, defining to- 
gether with the Holy Synod. 

I, Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, have subscribed, defining to- 
gether with the Holy Synod. 

I, Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, have subscribed, 
etc., (1048). 

I, Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, have subscribed, defining, etc. 


5. As aresult of his denial of the Inman, and of his belief in the Scriptural- 
ness of giving relative worship to Christ’s mere humanity,and of his denial of the 
doctrine of Economic Appropriation, estorius made Christ's mere humanity 
to be our High Priest and Apostle, our sole Advocate and Mediator and Inter- 
cessor above, and so made our redemption on the cross to be achieved by a mere 
creature, as though a creature could save aereature eternally. And so he taught 
men to direct their prayers to a mere created Intercessor and so led them into 
the error of worshipping a creature. Passages of Nestorius’ Twenty which 
make Christ’s mere humanity our High Priest are 11, 16,17 and 19. In Pas- 
sage 17 Nestorius blasphemes, as Cyril shows, by making his mere human 
Christ, a perfect and sinless Man, offer a sacrifice for himself, 


(1047). On these subscriptions note 1, columns 1077, 1078 in tome 3 of 
Coleti’s Concilia, states: ‘‘Hardouin compared these subscriptions with the 
translation of Marius Mercator, which we will give below from Baluze. The 
variation of the Codexes in these, says Hardouin, is incredible. The old trans- 
lation, in the edition of Antonius Contius, and in Baluze’s, which we ex- 
hibit below, omits the rest of the names after Juvenal’s, and has the follow- 
ing annotation: And all the Bishops aforesaid, who were more than two hun- 
dredin number, subscribed to the condemnation of Nestorius, for some filled the 
places of other Bishops who were not able to come to the Ephesine Metropolts,’” 
that is, to Ephesus. On these subscriptions compare pages 22-30, above. 


It will be noticed that St. Cyril does not assume that because he represented 
Rome and Egypt that that fact settled the controversy. On the contrary all 
the facts and these signatures which follow show that as in the other Ecumenical 
Councils it was the majority of episcopal votes which settled everything. For 
Christ had given the same power to bind and to loose and to baptize and to 
Eucharistize and to teach to all the Apostles and had promised his Spirit to 
guide them into all truth. None of those promises are limited to Peter the first 
of the Apostles, of whose fallibility however, the Scripture gives us clear proofs, 
And the power to teach on the highest themes of dogma and of discipline is 
exercised in its highest and noblest manifestation in an Ecumenical Synod. 


(1048). ΖΞ ΐε., stands for ‘‘ defining together with the Holy Synod.”’ 


490 Act f. of Ephesus. 


1, Acactus, by the mercy of God Bishop of Melitene, who agree 
with the Holy Synod in the forewritten sentence, have subscribed. 

I, Theodotus, Bishop of the holy Church of Ancyra (1049), agree 
with the Holy Synod and have subscribed. 

I, Palladius, Bishop of Amasia (1050), agree with the Holy 
Synod in the sentence forewritten and have subscribed. 

I, Amphilochius, Bishop of Sida (1051), have subscribed, defin- 
ing together with the Holy Synod. 

I, Lconius, Bishop of Gortyna in Crete, have subscribed, defin- 
ing together with the Holy Synod. 

7 Felix, Bishop of the cities of Apollonia and Belis, have sub- 
scribed, defining, e/c. 

I, Daniel, Bishop of Cownia (1052), have subscribed, defining, δίς. 

I, Perigenes, Bishop of Corinth (1053), have subscribed, de- 
fining, e/c. 

7 Hellanicus (1054), Bishop of Rhodés, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Cyrus the least, Bishop of Aphrodisias (1055), have sub- 
scribed, etc. 

7 Donatus (1056), Bishop of Nicopolis in Old Epirus, have 
subscribed, ec. 

7 Eucharius, Bishop of Dyrrhachitum (1057), have subscribed, 
defining, εἴς. 

I, Senecion, Bishop of the city of Codrine (1058), have subscribed, 
ete. 


(1049). The Latin translations of parts of this Synod differ widely; and 
some things which they contain are evidently mere annotations of the transta- 
tor. I give one of them in this note, and others of them in the notes below. A 
manuscript adds, “‘ of the First Galatia.”’ 

(1050). A manuscript adds, ‘‘ of Hellespontus”’ for ‘‘ of Helenopontus.” 

(1051). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Pamphylia.”’ 

(1052). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in the Second Cappadocia.” 

(1053). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Hellas.”’ 

(1054). A manuscript adds, ‘of the metropolis of the Rhodians.’’ 

(1055). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in the Province of Caria.”’ 

(x056). A manuscript has Dyzatus; Marius Mercator has Dinastus. In 
the Council of Chalcedon we find Dinatus. 


(1057). A manuscript adds, “οὐ New Epirus.” 
(1058). Or, ‘‘ Codrus,’’ or “ Codra,”’ or ‘‘ Codrt.”’? 1 do not find ‘‘ Codrus,”? 


Signatures of the Bishops. 491 


I, Epiphanius, Bishop of Cratia (1059), have subscribed, edc. 
I, Eusebius, Bishop of Heraclea (1060), have subscribed, efc. 


I, Anysius, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Thebes in Greece, 
have subscribed, defining, e/c. 


7, Domnus (106r), Bishop of the holy Church of God at Opus 
(1062), have subscribed, δε. 


I, Agathocles, Bishop of the city of the Coronaeans (1063), have 
subscribed, efc. 

I, Gregory, by God’s favor Bishop of Cerasus (1064), have sub- 
scribed, etc. 

7, Paralius, by God's mercy Bishop of the Andrapans (1065), 
have subscribed, ec. 

I, Callicrates, Bishop of Naupactus, have subscribed, efc. 


I, Nicias, Bishop of Megara (1066), have subscribed, e/c. 


I, Docimasius, Bishop of the city Maronia in the Province of 
Rhodope, in the Diocese of Thrace, have subscribed, eéc. 


I, Lucian, Bishop of the city of Toperus (1067), in the same Prov- 
ince, have subscribed, efc. 


or ‘‘Codra,’’ or ‘“‘Codri,’’ in Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, nor among the Episcopal Sees mentioned by Bingham in ¢he 
Ninth Book of his Antiquities, nor in the Lndex of Episcopal Sees, at the end of 
Vol. 3 of the ten volume edition of his works. Scodrus was the old metropolis of 
the Province of Praevalitana in the Civil Diocese of Dacia. In Smith’s Diétion- 
ary of Greek and Roman Geography, 1 find a ‘‘Codrion’’ which was in Illyria. 
Harpers’ Latin Diétionary mentions a ‘‘Codrio or Codrion’’ which was ‘‘a 
town in Greek Iilyria.’’ 
(1059). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Honorias.”’ 


(1060). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in the Province of Honorias.’’ 

(1061). A manuscript has ‘‘Domninus.’’ 

(1062). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Greece.”’ 

(1063). Marius Mercator has ‘‘ of Coronia.”’ 

(1064). ‘‘A manuscript adds, “215; Pontus Polemoniacus.’ The same for 
Eleusius of Neocaesarea;’’ note here in Harduini Covczl/za, tome 1, col. 1423. 

(1065). Thatis, of the inhabitants of Andrapa. A manuscript adds ‘‘in 
Hellenopontus.’’ 


” 


(1066). A manuscript has ‘‘of the Megarans.’’ As Megarais both feminine 
singular and neuter plural, therefore that or the reading in the text above may 
be correct. 


(1067). A manuscript adds, ‘‘of the Province of Rhodope.’’ I should add 


492 Act I. of Ephesus. 


I, Ennepius, Bishop of the city of Myxa (1068) in the same Prov- 
ince (1069), have subscribed, δ. 

I, Rheginus, Bishop of the city of Constantia (1070), have sub- 
scribed, ede. 

I, Sapricius, Bishop of Paphos (1071), have subscribed, δές. 

I, Themistius, the least, Bishop of Jassus (1072), have sub- 
scribed, defining together with the Holy Synod. 

7, Perebius, Bishop of the Thessalonian Woodlands (1073), have 
subscribed, defining together with the Holy Synod. 

I, Aphthonetus, the least, Bishop of Heraclea (1074), have sub- 
scribed, efc. 

I, Spudasius, Bishop of the Ceramans (1075), have subscribed, 
etc. 

I, Philetus, the least, Bishop of Amyzon (1076), have subscribed, 
ete. 

I, Archelaus, Bishop of Myndus (1077), have subscribed, eéc. 


I, Apellas, the least, Bishop of Cibyrrha (1078), have subscribed, 
elc. 


that most of the remarks above on these subscriptions are from the margin of 
Hardouin’s Concilia here, from the readings of the manuscripts of the Latin. 

(1068). Mercator has ‘‘ Maximianopolis.’’ 

(1069). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in the Province of Rhodope.”’ 

(1070). Mercator adds, ‘‘in Cyprus.” 

(1071). Mercator adds ‘‘in Cyprus.” 

(1072). A manuscript has “‘ of Jasus in Caria.”’ 

(1073). A manuscript has ‘‘ Perebius of the Thessalian Woodlands,”’ or 
‘‘Thessalian Passes.”’ 

(1074). ᾿Αφθόνητος ἐλάχιστος ἐπίσκοπος “Ἡρακλείας ὑπέγραψα, kai ta ἐξῆς. Whether 
ἐλάχιστος should be rendered here ‘‘the least’ in the sense of very humble, or 
‘least? in the sense of being a bishop of a small Church,I leave others to judge. 


I have used the literal English here and in the places below and above, I take 
the former to be the correct meaning. 


(1075). Or, “of Ceramus.” A manuscript adds, ‘‘in the Province ot 
Caria.” 

(1076). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Caria.” 

(1077). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Caria.”’ 

(1078). A manuscript adds, “ἃ city of Caria.” 


Signatures of the Bishops. 493 


I, Phanias, the least, Bishop of the city of Harpasa (1079), have 
subscribed, etc. 

I, Promachius, Bishop of the Alindans (1080), have subscribed, 
ete. 

I, Anderius, (1081), Bishop of the city of Cherronesus in the Prov- 
ince of Crete, have subscribed, δε. 

I, Paul, Bishop of the city of Lampe (1082), in the Province of 
Crete, have subscribed, δε. 

I, Zenobius, Bishop of the City of Gnossus tn the Province of Crete, 
have subscribed, edc. 

I, Theodore (1083), Bishop of Dodone in Old Epirus, have sub- 
scribed, ec. 

I, Secundianus, Bishop of the holy Church of Godin Lamia (1084), 
have subscribed, e/c. 

I, Dion, Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Theodore, Bishop of Echinaeus (1085), have subscribed, efc. 

I, Heracleon, who am also Theophilus, Bishop of Tralles (1086), 
have subscribed, ede. 

I, Euporus, Bishop of Hypaepa, have subscribed, ἐς. 

I, Rhodon, Bishop of Palaeopolis, in Asia, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Tychicus, Bishop of the city of the Erythraeans [or ‘‘ of the 
Erythrans’’} (1087), have subscribed, ede. 

I, Nestorius. Bishop of Sion (1088), have subscribed, efc. 

I, Eutychius, Bishop of the Holy, Universal and A postolic Church 
of God in Theodosiopolis (1089), have subscribed, etc. 


(1079). A manuscript adds, ‘in Caria.’’ 

(1080). A manuscript adds, ‘in Caria.’’ 

(1081). Mercator has ‘‘Andrew.”’ 

(1082). A manuscript has ‘‘ Lappa.”’ 

(1083). A manuscript has *‘ Dorotheus.”’ 

(1084). A manuscript has “‘in the Province of Thessaly.”’ 

(1085). A manuscript has ‘‘ of Echineus in the Province of Thessaly.”’ 

(1086). A manuscript of the Latin has ‘‘of Tralles,’’ and another has ‘of 
the Trallians.’’ 

(1087). A Latin manuscript has “ of the Chytrorans in Asia.”’ 

(1088). A manuscript of the Latin translation has ‘‘of the Province of 
Asia.”’ 


494 Ac I. of Ephesus. 
NANG she ay oe visa demeanor denne art St ΙΕ ΕΙ ὁ -- . 

I, Modestus, Bishop of the Aneans (1090), have subscribed, etc. 

J, Theosebius, the least, Bishop of the city of Priene (1091), have 
subscribed, ec. 

I, Theodotus, Bishop of Nyssa, have subscribed, eéc. 

I, Maximus, the least, Bishop of Assus, have subscribed, efc. 

7 Maximus, Bishop of Cuma (1092), have subscribed, etc. 

7 Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Theodore, Bishop of the Anenysians (1093), have subscribed, 
etc. 

1 Eusebius, Bishop of the Clazomenians (1094), have subscribed, 
ag I, Eusebius, Bishop of Magnesia (1095), have subscribed, δε. 

I, Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura (1096), have subscribed, efc. 

I, Eutropius, [the] least, Bishop of Evaza, have subscribed, ec. 

I, Philip, Bishop of the city of the Pergamians (1097), have sub- 
scribed, δε. 

I, Aphobius, the least, Bishop of Colona (1098), have subscribed, 


ete. 
I, Dorotheus, the least, Bishop of Myrina (1099), have subscribed, 


ete. 

I, Euthalius, Bishop of the city of the Colophonians, have sub- 
scribed, efc. 

I, Heliotheus, Bishop of the Briulitans, have subscribed, εἴ. 

I, Athanasius, Bishop of the island Parasus (1100), have sub- 
scribed, δέ. 
ee, LLL 

(1089). A manuscript adds, “ of Asia.”’ 

(1090). In Asia. 

(ro9r). A manuscript adds ‘‘in Asia.” 

(1092). A Latin manuscript has ‘‘of Cyme in Asia.” 

(1093). A manuscript has “of Anenysia.”’ 

(1094). Or ‘‘of Clazomenae.” 

(1095). A manuscript adds, “οὐ Mount Sipylus,” which was in Lydia in 
Asia Minor. 

(1096). A manuscript adds, ‘‘in Asia.”’ 


(1097). Or, ‘‘of Pergamus.”” 
(1098). Mercator has ‘‘Coloes.”’ 
(1099). Another spelling is Myrrhina. 


Signatures of the Bishops. 495 


I, Hesychius, Bishop of the city of Partum in the Province of 
Flellespontus, have subscribed, efc. 

I, Eusebius, Bishop of the Asponians (1101), have subscribed, δε. 

I, Philumenus, Bishop of Cinna (1102), have subscribed, ec. 

I, Zeno, Bishop of the city Curium in Cyprus, have subscribed, 
ete. 

I, Tribonianus, Bishop of the holy Church in Priamopolis (1103), 
have subscribed, edc. 

I, Nunechius, Bishop of the holy Church in Selga, have sub- 
scribed, efc. 

I, Evagrius, Bishop of Solia (1104), have subscribed, δά. 

I, Caesarius, Chorepiscopus (1105), of the city of Alce (1106), 
have subscribed, edc. 

I, John, Bishop of Praeconnesus, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Nestus, Bishop of the holy Church of God in Corybosyna, have 
subscribed, efc. 

I, Acacius, Bishop of the Church of God in Cotena, have sub- 
scribed, edc. 

I, Neiarius, Bishop of the Universal Church (1107) in Senea, 
have subscribed, e/c. 

I, Solon, Bishop of Carallia, have subscribed, etc. 

7, Matidianus, Bishop of the city of the Coracisians (1108), have 
subscribed, etc. 


I, Marianus, Bishop of the Church in Lyrba, have subscribed, 
CLE: 


(1100). Mercator in the Council of Chalcedon, has ‘‘of the island of 
Faros.”’ 

(1101). A manuscript adds ‘‘of Galatia.” 

(1102). In Galatia, as we see on page 152 above. 

(1103). Hardouin’s margin has ‘‘ otherwise of Aspendus.”’ 

(1104). Mercator has “οὗ Soli in Cyprus.”’ 

(1105). Greek, χωρεπίσκοπος, that is, “Country Bishop.’’ See on those pre- 
lates the Index to Bingham’s Antiguilies under Chorepiscopi, and in Smith. 
and Cheetham’s D7é?. of Christ. Antig. under Chorepiscopus. 

(1106). Mercator has ‘‘Arce’’ In Act VI. it is Arcesena, 

(1107). Greek, τῆς ἐν Σενέα καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. 

(1108). Or, ‘‘of the city of Coracesium.”’ 


496 Act I, of Ephesus. 


I, Theodulus, Bishop of Helusa, have subscribed, etc. 

7, Philadelphius, Bishop of the Gratianopolitans (1109), have sub 
scribed, δε. 

I, Theoétistus, Bishop of the city of the Phocaeans, have sub- 
scribed, e/c. 

I, Rufinus, Bishop of the city of the Tabanians (1110), have sub- 
scribed, efc. 

I, John, Bishop of Augustopolis, have subscribed, ede. 

I, Romanus, Bishop of Rhaphia, have subscribed, eéc. 

7 Fidus, Bishop of Joppa, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Ajanes, Bishop of Sycamazon, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Paulianus, Bishop of Majuma, have subscribed, eéc. 

I, Theodore, Bishop of Arbdela, have subscribed, ete. 

I, Peter, Bishop of Parembola, have subscribed etc. 

I, Paul, Bishop of Anthedon, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Netoras, Bishop of Gaza, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Saidas, Bishop of Phaenis, have subscribed, δ. 

I, Serenianus, Bishop of the city of the Myrians (1111), have 
subscribed, efc. 

I, Cyril, Bishop of Pylae. I Selenespondius, a presbyter [and] a 
visitor (1112), have subscribed for him, because he suffers in his 
hand. 

I, Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocurora, have subscribed, δε. 

I, Eusebius, Bishop of Pelustum, have subscribed, ec. 

I, Evoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus, have subscribed, σε. | 

I, Paul, Bishop of Phragonea, have subscribed, defining together 
with the Synod. 


(1109). Or “οἵ the city of Gratianopolis.”’ 

(1110). That is, ‘‘of the inhabitants of the city Tabae, or Tabtia, (or 
Tabana 9) 

(1111). That is, ‘‘of the inhabitants of the city Myra,” or, ‘‘Myrum,”’ or, 
*¢ Myria.”’ 

(1112). Or, ‘‘an itinerant.”” See Periodeutae and Chorepiscopus in Smith 
and Cheetham’s D7é. of Christ. Antig. and under Περιοδευταὶ and Chorepiscopus 
in Bingham, where we see that the goer-about (περιοδευτής) was a presbyter 
only like our Rural Dean, not a Chorepiscopus at all. See Rural Deans in 
Hook’s Church Diétionary. 


Signatures of the Bishops. 497 


oa a a a a aaa FR 


I, Macedonius, Bishop of Xoes, have subscribed, δίς. 

7 Peter, Bishop of Oxyrinchus, have subscribed, eéc. 

I, Adelphius, Bishop of the Church of the Onuphites (1113), have 
subscribed, etc. 

7 Athanasius, Bishop of Paralius, have subscribed, efc. 

7 Heraclides, Bishop of the Parish (xaporxtas) (1114), of Thynts, 
have subscribed, efc. 

1 Silvanus, Bishop of Coprithis, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Cyrus, Bishop of the Achaeans (1115), have subscribed, δ. 

7 Marinus, Bishop of Heliopolis, have subscribed, δίς. 

I, Macarius, Bishop of the Metelitans (1116), have subscribed, 


ete. 
I, Adelphius, Bishop of Sais, have subscribed, δίς. 


I, Metradorus, Bishop of Leonta (1117), have subscribed, δίς. 

I, John, Bishop of the Hephaestians, have subscribed, etc. 

i Leontius, Bishop * '* Ὲ (ar718), have subscribed, etc. 
(1119). 


(1113). Onuphis was in Aegyptus Prima. 

(1114). Παροικία, from which our word parish comes, was anciently used 
among the Greeks, where among us diocese is used now. For the dioceses were 
smaller generally among them than among us now, and there were, perhaps, 
more bishops in the fifth century than there are now; though now, the number 
of those who profess to be Christians is much larger than then. _For anciently 
many of the smaller episcopates had only a few presbyters and deacons under 
a bishop. Where parish was used for the later dzocese, the congregations in it 
were styled churches or congregations. 

(1115). Or, ‘' of Achaeus.”’ 

(1116). That is, ‘‘Bishop of the inhabitants of the city Metelis.”’ 

(1117). Or, ‘‘ ofthe Leontians,”’ or “" of the Leontopolitans.”’ 


(1118). There is a blank space in Coleti here indicating that some thing is 
lacking, that is, the name of the see, whether because the manuscript is injured 
or not I can not say. 

(1119). There is much difference in spelling some of the names of the sees 
in the Councils. Much of it arises from the fact that the Greeks aimed to spell 
as they pronounced and that different combinations of letters in Greek are now, 
and probably were then, pronounced in the same way. Take for instance the 
Greek see Tava, which is also spelled Tafa. In Latin and in English these 
would be spelled respectively Zauva and 7abae and pronounced therefore quite 
differently. But in Greek the pronunciation would be Tava and Zavé. The 
same sort of difference in spelling is preserved in other ancient writings. 


498 Act I. of Ephesus. 


I, Strategius, Bishop of the Church (1120) of the Athribites, 
have subscribed, edc. 


I, Lampetius, Bishop of Casstum, have subscribed, ete. 
I, Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa (1121), have subscribed, eéc. 
I, Eusebius, Bishop of Nilopolis, have subscribed, etc. 


I, Chrysaorius, Bishop of the Aphroditans (1122), have sub- 
scribed, etc. 


I, Alexander, Bishop of Cleopatris, have subscribed, etc. 


I, Theon, Bishop of Heractea of the Sethroetum (1123), have sub- 
scribed, 42. 


I, Theonas, Bishop of Psynchis, have subscribed, efc. 


Another cause of the variations would be the ignorance of some copyists. 
on geography which would lead them to confound names of different places. 
Besides, some of them did not know the ordinary spelling of names of places, 
and so they spelled them as they fancied. Sometimes they wrote from dicta- 
tion and not knowing the spelling and not seeing the manuscript which they 
were copying, they made bad blunders in spelling in their haste. Sometimes. 
they may have taken an abbreviation for the full name, as for instance, Leonto. 
for Leontopolis, as some foreigners might take our Mass. for Massachusetts to. 
be the whole name. 


Still another cause is the fact that owing to the Mohammedan irruptions 
and conquests the names of many sees in the East and in Africa have perished 
with the sees and towns themselves, which are utterly wiped out. Hence we 
can not always identify them or even their exact sites. Sometimes there is an 
erasure in the manuscript as above. Sometimes the Bishop may have forgotten 
to write the name of his see. 


(Liga) Or, “ef thercity.2’ 
(1121). Or, ‘‘ of the Cabasites.”’ 
(1122). Or, ‘‘ Bishop of Aphrodita.”’ 


(1123). Or, ‘‘the Sethroetus.’’ There were several Heracleas in different 
parts of the world. There was one in the Province of Arcadia in the jurisdic- 
tion of Cyril of Alexandria. Sethroeta is given in Wiltsch’s Geography, etc., 85. 
the name of asee in Augustamnica Prima under Cyril. But was the country 
round about it called the Sethroetum, or the Sethroetis, and was the Heraclea 
here meant situated in that country? Wiltsch, in notez, page 194, Vol. I. of 
his Geography and Statistics of the Church, states that Sethroeta was ‘“‘to the 
west of Pelusium. ‘The first bish. at the Counc. of Eph. in 431,’ and in note 3, 
page 196 of the same volume, he tells us that Heraclea Superior was in the 
Province of Arcadia and so under Cyril, and was, ‘‘near Coma. The first bish. 
at the Counc. of Nice, the last at the Counc. of Eph. in 431. But Bingham in 
his Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book IX., Chapter 2, Section 6, states. 


Signatures of the Bishops. 499 


I, Heraclides, Bishop of the Upper Heractlea, have subscribed, eéc. 

7, Aristobulus, Bishop of Thmuis, have subscribed, eve. 

7 Ammon, Bishop of the city of the Butinians (1124), have sub- 
scribed, efc. 

I, Andrew, Bishop of Hermopolis, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Macarius, Bishop of Anteum, have subscribed, eéc 

7, Sabinus, Bishop of Pan, have subscribed, ede. 

7 Heraclius, Bishop of Tamiathis, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Zenobius, Bishop of Barca in Pentapolis, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Isaac, Bishop of Elearchia, have subscribed, ἐς. 

I, Zeno, Bishop of Teuchira, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Abraham, Bishop of the city Ostracina, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Hieraces, Bishop of the Aphnaitans, have subscribed, δε. 

I, Samuel, Bishop of Dysthis, have subscribed, ee. 


I, Daniel, Bishop of Darna, have subscribed, δ. 
7 Sosipater, Bishop of Libya Septimiaca, have subscribed, etc. 
I, Alypius, Bishop of Sela, have subscribed, e/c. 


that there wasa Heraclea Superior in the Province of Arcadia, and another 
also which was called “‘ the little city of Hercules,’’? in Latin, Herculis Civitas 
Parva, which was ‘“‘in the nome Sethroete’’ or ‘‘ Sethroetis,” (in Sethroete 
nomo). Liddell and Scott in their Greek Lexicon under νομός tell us that that 
word was used for ““α district province,’ and that ‘‘ vouoi was the name given to: 
the distriéis into which Egypt was divided.’’ I judge therefore, that the above 
mentioned Heraclea was that in the Sethroetan Nome in Augustamnica Prima, 

west of Pelusium. Donne in his article degyptus, in Smith’s Dictionary of 
Greek and Roman Geography tells us that in the time of Augustus the Emperor, 
Egypt was divided into three great districts called Epzstrategiae, that is, Upper 
Egypt, Middle Egypt and Lower Egypt, and that each of them was divided into: 
nomes; see id., Vol. I., page 47. Under Heracleopolis Magna, that is, the great 

city of Hercules, or the Heraclea which was the Upper one, that is, the furthest 

up the Nile, he shows that it was in Middle Egypt. Aeracleopolis Parva, 

the Little city of Hercules, which was called also the Lower city of Her- 

cules, that is, the Lower Heraclea, was lower down the Nile, and in Lower 
Egypt, and he shows that “‘It stood near Pelusium, in the Sethroite nome, 

and beyond the westernmost branch of the Delta.’’ This, therefore, is evidently 
the see mentioned above in the text. Since the above was written I have seem 
Theonas’ signature at the end of Act I. of Ephesus, which shows that the 
Heraclea meant was in the Sethroetum. This is made still clearer from the 

fact that just below at the end of Act I. Heraclides signs as ‘‘ Bishop of the 

Upper Heraclea.’’ 


500 Act I. of Ephesus. 


I, Ammonius, Bishop of Panephysus (1125), have subscribed, etc. 

7 Helladius, Bishop of the holy Church of God * * * (1126), 
have subscribed, edc. 

I, Bosporius (1127), Bishop of Gangra, the Metropolis of the Prov- 
ince of Pamphylia, have subscribed, defining together with the holy 
Synod. 7, Hypatius, A Presbyter deputed by him, have subscribed, be- 
cause he himself ts sick. 

7 Arginus, Bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, have sub- 
scribed. I, Synesius, a Presbyter, have subscribed for him because 
he is unwell. 

I, Helladius, Bishop of the holy Church at Adramytum (1128), 
have subscribed, eéc. 

I, Stephen, Bishop of the city of the Tettans (1129) in Asia, have 
subscribed, ec. 

7 Iddyas, Bishop of Smyrna, have subscribed, efc. 

I, Avistonicus, [the] least, Bishop of the Metropolis of the Laodi- 
ceans, have subscribed, etc. 

I, Beneagus, Bishop of the Church in Fiterapolis. I, Paul, a Pres- 
byter, have subscribed for him, he being present and at his command, 
ete. 

I, Silvanus, Bishop of Ceratapa (1130), have subscribed, defin- 
ing, ede. 

1 Constantine, Bishop of the city of the Diocletians (1131), have 
subscribed, etc. 

I, Hermolaus, Bishop of the Sattudians, have subscribed, defin- 
ing (1132), etc. 

I, Asclepiades, Bishop of the Church at 17) rapezopolis, have sub- 
scribed, defining, etc. 


ee - a ππ- “πΠΦΠΠΦΕΨΝ 

(1124). Or, ‘‘of the city Butus.”’ 

(1125). Or, ‘‘ of Panaephysus,” or “of Panaephysis.”’ 

(1126). There is something lacking here, shown by the lacuna in Coleti. 
It is the name of the see. 

(1127). Or, ‘‘ Bosphorius.” 

(1128). Or, ‘‘at Adrametum,”’ or ‘Cat Adramyttium.”’ 

(1129). Or, ‘‘of Teos.”’ 

(1130). Or, ‘‘of the Ceretapans,”’ or “ of Chaeretapa.”’ 

(1131). Or, ‘‘of Diocletianopolis.”’ 

(1132), Or, ““ decreeing.” 


Signatures of the Bishops. 501 


I, John, Bishop of Lesbos, have subscribed, defining, ἐς. 
I, Peter, the least, Bishop of Crusa, have subscribed, defining, 


ele. 
I, Eugene, the least, Bishop of Apollonias, have subscribed, de- 


fining, efc. 

I, Callinicus, Bishop of Apamia (1133), have subscribed, defin- 
ing, etc. 

I, Athanasius, Bishop of the Church at Dueltus and Sozopolis, 
have subscribed, δ. 

I, Valerian, Bishop of Icontum, have subscribed, defining, e/c. 

7 Pius, Bishop of Pessinus (1134), have subscribed, defining, 


etc. 
I, Thomas, Bishop of Derbe, have subscribed, defining, δίς. 


7 Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra, have subscribed, defining, efc. 

7 Ablavius, Bishop of Amorium, have subscribed, defining, efc. 

I, Letojus, Bishop of Libyas, have subscribed, defining, eve. 

7 Severus, Bishop of Synnada in the Province of Phrygia Salu- 
taris, have subscribed, efc. 

I, Domninus, Bishop of Cotneum (1135), 72 the province of Phrygia 
Salutaris, have subscribed, defining, δ. 

I, Eustathius, Bishop of Docimium, in the province of Phrygia 
Salutaris, have subscribed, defining, e/c. 

I, Dalmatius, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Cyzicus, have 
subscribed, defining, edc. 

I, Timothy, Bishopof * * * (1136), zm the province of the 
Scythians, have subscribed, defining, e/c. 

I, Athanasius, Bishop of the city of the Scepsians, in the province 
of Hellespontus, have subscribed, defining, ec. 

I, Meonius, Bishop of the city of Sardis in Lydia, have sub- 
scribed, etc. 


(1133). Better, ‘‘Apamea.”’ 
(1134). Or, ‘‘of the Pessinusites,’’ or ‘‘of the Pessinuntians.”’ 
(1135). Or, “οἵ Cotyaium,’’ or ‘‘ Cotyaeum.”’ 


(1136). Something is lacking here, for there is a lacuna in the text of Coleti 
in this place. 


502 - Act I. of Ephesus. 


I, Theophanes, Bishop of the city of Philadelphia, have subscribed, 
ele. 

I, Phoscus, Bishop of Thyatira, have subscribed, defining, etc. 

I, Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Thermans (2137), i the 
province of Hellespontus, have subscribed, defining, esc. 

I, Commodus, Bishop of Tripolis, have subscribed, etc. 

7, Eutherius, of the city of the Stratcnicians in Lydia, have sub- 
scribed, defining, edc. 

I, Paul, the least, Bishop of Dardana in Lydia, have subscribed, 
defining together with the Holy Synod, using the hand at my command 
for writing of the brother and fellow-minister, Phoscus, because lam 
lying down in sickness (1138). 

I, Limenius, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Sellae in the 
province of Media, have subscribed, defining, δε. 

1 Theodore, the least, Bishop of Atala (1139), have subscribed, 
defining, efc. 

I, Paul, Bishop of the Church in Thrymnae (1140), have sub- 
scribed, defining, e7c. 

I, Timothy, Bishop of the city Termesus and Eudocias, have sub- 
scribed, efc. 

I, Aedesius, Bishop of the city Istoda, (1141), have subscribed, δε. 

I, Libanius, Bishop of Palaeopolis, have subscribed, defining, δές. 


I, John, the least, Bishop of Aurelianopolis in the Province of 
Lydia, have subscribed, etc. 


—————— a το------ SL 


(1137). Or, ‘‘of Therma,” or “of Thermae.’’ 
(1138). Or, ‘‘in infirmity.” 


(1139). Or, ‘‘of Attalia,” or “of the Attalians.’’ I find AZtalia but not 
Atala in Bingham’s Index of Episcopal Sees after the Tenth Book of his “2{1- 
guities in the Ten volume Oxford edition of A. D. 1855. 


(1140). Not in Bingham’s list of Sees, nor in the Index to Wiltsch’s Geog- 
raphy and Statistics of the Church. Bingham has a see of Thymobria, or, 
Thymbri, Tymbria, or Tymbra in Proconsular Asia. But see a note on this 
Episcopate below where it is mentioned in my list among the Asiatic Sees 
under Memnon. 

(1141). Not in Bingham nor in Wiltsch. Bingham has Isinda and Pis- 
inda or Sinda in the Second Pamphylia, and Wiltsch has Jszmdus. See a 
note below on this in my list of Sees of the Diocese of Asia. 


Signatures of the Bishops. 508 


I, Theodore, Bishop of Gadara, have subscribed, defining. 7 
Aetherius, adeacon, have subscribed at his command, because he ts un- 
able, or does not write (1142). 

Ll, Daphnus, Bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander,have subscribed, 
defining, eéc. 

I, Thomas, Bishop of Valentinianopolis, have subscribed, defin- 
ing, etc. 

I, Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya, have subscribed, defining, efc. 

I, Berinianus, Bishop of Perga, have subscribed, defining, δίς. 

I, Pabiscus, Bishop of Apollonia, have subscribed, δ. 

I, Eulogius, Bishop of Terenuthts (1143), have subscribed, defin- 
ing, etc. 

7, Isaac, Bishop of Tavlae (1144), have subscribed. 7) Adelphius, 
Bishop of Onuphis, at his request have subscribed for him, because he zs 
lying sick. 

I, Eudoxius, Bishop of the city of Choma, in the Province of Lycia, 
have subscribed, defining, δε. 

I, Aristocritus, Bishop of Olympus, have subscribed to the fore- 
going sentence of the Holy Synod, and I assent. 

And the rest of the Bishops who came to the Holy Synod after those 
[above named] had subscribed the deposition of Nestorius, subscribed 
the foregoing Sentence. So the Bishops who deposed Nestorius 
himself are more than two hundred in number. For some were 
place-holders for other Bishops who were not able to come to the 
Metropolis of the Ephesians. 

The Sentence of Deposition sent to him on the day after his de- 
position: 

The FHloly Synod gathered by God's grace (χάριτι Θεοῦ) and the de- 
cree of our most religious and Christ-loving Emperors in the Metropolis 
of the Ephesians, sendeth [what here followeth] to Nestorius, a new 
Judas: 


(1142). Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1088: αἰθέριος διάκονος iméypawa, ἐπιτραπεὶς 
παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀδυνάτου ὄντος, ἢ μὴ γράφοντος. 

(1143). In Wiltsch, not in Bingham. 

(1144). Or, Zava, or Tabae. In the Greek the first syllable, Zav and 7aé 
though spelled differently, are pronounced alike. Tavlon is not in Bingham 
nor in Wiltsch. 


504 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Know that thou, thyself, on account of thy blasphemous 
preachings (1145) and thy disobedience to the Canons, wast deposed 
by the Holy Synod in accordance with the behests of the Church 
Canons on the twenty-second of the present month of June, and that 
thou art an alien from every ecclesiastical grade. 


On the day following the deposition of the same Nestorius, that 
missive was sent to him by the Holy Synod (1146). 


[END OF ACT I. OF EPHESUS]. 


ae 

(1145). Greek, διὰ τὰ δυσσεβῆ σοῦ κηρύγματα. 

(1146). This seems to be the end of Act I. The things which follow are not 
mentioned in it, but most or all of them seem to have been written between 
this First Act and the Second, though between those formal sessions there 
would naturally be almost daily gatherings of the Bishops with Cyril, through 
their common interest and common faith and common peril, in which the 
documents between the first two Acts would naturally be drawn up and approved. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 
ON 


ACT I. OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 


ee 


NOTE A. 


On pages 11-19 above. On the attempt of the Emperor Theodosius 77. 
to govern the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Synod and to 
crush Cyril and to favor Nestorius. 


In the first letter of the Emperor Theodosius to the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod, written before it met, the Syzodzcon of Monte Casino 
tells us that ‘‘ he gave command how the order of hearing should be 
observed, tf all who had already been summoned to tt had convened,’’ 
(Col. 581, tome 84 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca). 


NOTE B. 


On page r9. On the expression ‘‘ KTERNAL AUGUST ONEs,”’ being 
an addition to note 20 there. 

The Emperor Theodosius II. in his Letter to the Third Ecu- 
menical Council by Count Candidian, in which he undertook to 
guide the Bishops on purely spiritual themes which were outside his 
jurisdiction and were their prerogative, terms his court dzvine, τὸ 
θεῖον ἡμῶν στρατόπεδον, literally ‘‘ our divine court.’’ J have in charity 
rendered it in line 3, page 12 above, ‘‘our godly court,’’ but I should 
substitute ‘‘dzvine’’ for ‘‘godly,’’ and so give the sense more ex- 
actly. And that edict bears the title ‘‘ a divine Letter,’ Greek, θεῖον 
γράμμα. See note 6, page 8. 

In Ante-Nicene times Christians would not use such wicked lan- 
guage. Tertullian, for example, in Section 33 of his Apology, and 
Section 17, Book I. of his work 70 the Nations states that Christians 
refused to call the Emperor god, and he defends them in so refusing 


506 Act 1, of Ephesus. 


(pages 112 and 457 of Vol. XI. of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library). 
The first named passage is found also in the Oxford translation of part 
of Tertullian, pages 73, 74, which I here quote with its notes. Itis 
noteworthy as showing how thoroughly loyal and obedient the 
Christians were to their Emperors, even though they were pagans, 
when such obedience did not contravene the higher law of God and 
require them to give His name or any act of worship tothem. For 
they were commanded to worship God alone (Matt. iv., 10). They 
were willing, according to Christ’s command to vender unto Caesar the 
things which belong unto Caesar, but they must vender unto God the 
things which belong unto God (Matt. xxii., 21; Mark xii,17, and Luke 
xv.,25). And God’s name and every act of worship are prerogative to 
Him. And indeed giving the name of God to a creature is a sort of 
worship of that creature, and is therefore justly anathematized in St. 
Cyril’s Anathema VIII. which is approved by the whole Church in 
the Third Ecumenical Synod. This place of Tertullian is as follows: 


TERTULLIAN’S Book of Apology against the Heathen, addressed 
to the Roman Emperors; SeCtions xxxili. and xxxiv.: 


XX XIII. But why should I say more of the Religion and the 
reverential affection of the Christians towards the Emperor, whom 
we needs must look up to as the man whom our Lord hath chosen ? 
I might even say with good cause, Ceesar is rather ours, being ap- 
pointed by our God (y). Wherefore in this also I do him more service 
towards his welfare, not only because I ask it from Him, Who is 
able to grant it, or because I that ask it am such an one as to de- 
serve to obtain it, (2) but also because, by keeping down the majesty 
of Ceesar beneath God, I commend him the more unto God to Whom 
alone I subject him. But I subject him to one to whom I make him 
not equal. For I will not call the Emperor a god, both because I 
cannot speak falsely, and because I dare not mock him, and because 
he himself will not desire to be called agod. If he bea man, it 
concerneth a man to yield to a god. He hath enough in being 
called an Emperor: this also is a great name which is given him of 
God. He who calleth him a god, denieth that he is an Emperor. 


(y). On the principle that all civil authority by whomsoever wielded is 
derived from Jehovah, (Rom. xiii., 1-8). Of course, if Christians could choose 
the ruler they would naturally prefer one who is a Christian as in the very 
nature of things more observant of Christ’s laws and therefore a better ruler 
than a non-Christian. And they can not be loyal to Christ and his religion and 
Church unless they choose a Christian wherever they can. 


(z). In that, asa Christian, I worship Him, see above, c. 29, 30. 


Additional Notes. 507 


Unless he be a man, he is not an Emperor. Even when triumphing 
in that most lofty chariot, he is warned that he is a man, for he is 
prompted from behind, ‘‘Look behind thee—remember that thou 
arta man (a).’’ And, in truth, his joy ison this very account the 

reater, for that he glittereth with so much glory, as to need re- 
minding of his proper nature. He were notso great, if he were then 
called a god, because ke would not be truly called so ; he is greater, 
in that he is reminded not to think himself a god. 

XXXIV. Augustus, the founder of the Empire, would not even 
have himself called Lord (4); for this also isa name of God(c). I 
will by all means call the Emperor lord, but only when I am not com- 
pelled to call him lord in the stead of God. Nevertheless to him Iam 
a freeman, for there is One that is my Lord, the Almighty and eter- 
nal God, the Same who is his Lord also. He that is the father of 
his country, how is he Lord? But atitle of natural affection is 
more pleasing also than one of power. Even of a family, men are 
rather called the fathers than the lords@). So far isit from being 
due to the Kmperor to be called a god, (which cannot be believed), 
with a flattery not only most disgraceful, but dangerous also, 
as though when thou hast one Emperor, thou wert to call another 
so. Wilt thou not incurthe highest and most implacable displeasure 
of him whom thou hadst for thine Emperor, a displeasure to be 
feared even by him to whom thou gavest the title? Be religious 
towards God, thou that wouldest have Him propitious to the Km- 
peror. Cease to believe any other to be God, and so likewise to call 
him god who hath need of God. If flattery of such sort blusheth not 
for its falsehood in calling a man a god, let it at least fear for its evil 
omen: it is ill-augured to call Ceesar a god before he be deified (¢) (/). 


(a). Juv. x. 42. Plin. 33. 1. Jerome Ep. ad Paulam de ob. Blesillz. 


(6). Suet. Aug. c. 53. Tertullian gives a further interpretation to Augustus’ 
act, which was in itself political , as Orosius points out another bearing, which 
it had ; ‘* he allows himself not to be called Lord, in whose reign the true Lord 
of the whole human race was born among men.”’ 


(c). Martial, X. 72, uses them as equivalent, of Nerva, ‘‘I will not call him 
Lord and God,” and Philo ad Caium, of Augustus, ‘‘ he willed not to be called 
Lord or God.”’ 


(4). Pater-familias. 


(e). ‘‘ For divine honours are not given to the prince, before he ceases to 
live among men.’”’ Tac. Ann. xy. 74. add Minuc. F. p. 216. Vespasian in his 
last sickness, ‘‘ πὶ about to be a god.’’ Suet. Vesp. 23. 

(f). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome τ, col. 448; Tertulliani Apologeticus 
cap. xxxiii., * * * Non enim deum Imperatorem dicam vel quia mentiri 
nescio, vel quia illum deridere non audeo, vel quia nec ipse se deum volet dici. 
Si homo sit, interest hominis deo cedere; satis habeat appellari imperator. 
Grande et hoc nomen est, quod a Deo traditur. Negat illum imperatorem, qui 
deum dicit. Nisi homo sit, non est imperator. Hominem se esse etiam 


δ08 Act I. of Ephesus. 


In Section 17, Book I, of his work addressed ¢o the Nations, that 
is, to the Gentiles, thatis, to the heathen, (for Tertullian held the 
New Testament doctrine that all the unbaptized are to be numbered 
as outside of God’s covenant of mercy, and that Christians alone are 
what Peter calls them, ‘‘ a chosen race, (γένος ἐχλεχτόν), a royal priest- 
hood, a holy nation, a people for a possession,;’’) after protesting the 
loyalty of Christians, and giving good reasons why they would not 
propitiate again the images of the Emperors and swear by their 
genius, comes to the accusation made by the heathen that they (the 
Christians) were rebellious because they would not call the Emperor 
a god, and replies to it as follows: 


‘‘Book I. Section 17 * * * ‘* But we do not call the Emperor 
a god: for on that matter, as men commonly say, we make faces of 
derision. | 


‘‘Section 18. Aye, ye who call Caesar a god deride also, by call- 
ing him what he is not, and you speak wrongly, decause he does 
not wish to be what ye call him; for he prefers rather to live than to 
be madea god.’’ (1). Tertullian means that the Emperor was not 
deified by the pagan Romans till after death. 


triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ei a tergo: 
Respice post te, hominem memento te. Et utique hoc magis gaudet tanta se 
gloria coruscare, ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria. [Minor erat, 
si tunc deus diceretur, quia non vere diceretur]. Major est qui revocatur, ne se 
deum existimet. 

Caput xxxiv. Augustus imperii formator, ne dominum quidem dici se 
volebat; et hoc enim dei est cognomen. Dicam plane imperatorem dominum, 
sed more communi, sed quando non cogor, ut dominum dei vice dicam. 
Caeterum liber sum illi; dominus enim meus unus est, Deus omnipotens et 
aeternus idem qui etipsius. Qui pater patriae est, qaomodo dominus est. Sed 
est gratius nomen pietatis, quam potestatis, etiam .amiliae magis patres, quam 
domini vocantur. ‘Tanto abest, ut imperator deus debeat dici quod non potest 
credi non modo turpissima, sed et perniciosa adulatione; tanquam si habens 
imperatorem. alterum appelles, nonne maximam et inexorabilem offensam 
contrahes ejus, quem habuisti, etiam ipsitimendam, quem appelasti? Esto re- 
ligiosus in deum, qui vis illum propitium imperatori. Desine alium Deum 
colere vel credere, atque ita et hunc deum dicere, cui deo opus est. Sinon de 
mendacio erubescit adulatio ejusmodi, hominem deum appellans, timeat 
saltem de infausto. Maledictum est ante apotheosin deum Caesarem nuncu- 
pare. 

(7). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 1, col. 583, Tertulliani ad Nationes,. 
lb. 1, cap. 17. Sed non dicimus deum imperatorem, super hoc enim, quod. 
vulgo aiunt, sannam facimus. 


Additional Notes. 509. 


Such blasphemy do we find among the ancient pagans. But 
alas! alas! it has been imitated by some who claim to be Christian! 
On that point Edgar in his Variations of Popery, Chapter 1v., 
Supremacy, gives four views current among Romanists in his day as 
to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. After mentioning the 
first two he comes to the third and fourth as follows: (I quote him 
as on pages 157-160 of the New York edition of A. Ὁ. 1848): 


‘‘A third variety would raise the pope to an equality with God. 
The Italian school, [as] one would expect, confers a power on the 
Roman hierarch calculated to satisfy the highest ambition. But the 
Transalpine system does not terminate the progression. A third 
description of flatterers have proceeded to greater extravagancy, 
and vested his holiness with ampler prerogatives. These, in the 
exorbitance of papal adulation, have insulted reason, outraged com- 
mon sense, and ascended, in their impious progress, through all the 
gradations of blasphemy. /Pretended Christians have abscribed that 
Divinity to the Roman pontiff, which the Pagans attributed to the 
Roman emperors. Domitian, addressing his subjects in his procla- 
mation, signed himself their ‘Lord God.’ Caligula arrogated the 
name of ‘the Greatest and Best God;’ while Sapor, the Persian 
monarch, affected, with more modesty, to be only ‘ the Brother of 
the Sun and Moon’(1) This blasphemy has been has been imitated by. 
the minions of his Roman infallibility. The pope, says the gloss of 
the canon law, ‘isnot a man.’ This awkward compliment is intended 
to place his holiness above humanity. According to Turrecrema 
and Barclay, ‘ some DOCTORLINGS wish, in their adulation, to equal 
the pontiff to god.’ These, says Gerson, quoted by Carron and 
Giannone, ‘ esteem the pope a God, who has all power in heaven 
and earth.’ The sainted Bernard affirms that, ‘ none’ except God, 
is like the pope, either in heaven or on earth.’(2). 


‘‘The name and the works of God have been appropriated to the 
pope, by theologians, canonists, popes, and councils. Gratian, 
Pithou, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, Gibert, Gregory, Nicholas, 
Innocent, the canon law,and the Lateran council have complimented. 
his holiness with the name of deity, or bestowed on him the viceger- 


18. Imo qui deum Caesarem dicitis, et deridetis, dicendo quod non est, et 
male dicitis, quia non vult esse quod dicitis, mavult enim vivere, quam deum 
fieri. 

(7). Suetonius, 322, 555. 

(2). Papa nonest homo. Sext. Decret. IL. I. Tit. VI. Ὁ. 18. 


Doctorculi volunt adulando eos quasi zequiparare Deo. Barclay, 219. Turrec-. 
rem. Q. II. Aestiment Papam unicum Deum esse qui habet potestatem omnem 
in ccelo et in terra. Carron, 34. Giannon, X. 12, Prater Deum, non est 
similis ei nec in ccelo, necin terra. Bernard, 1725. 2. Thess. II. 4. 


510 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ency of neaven. Pithou, Gibert, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, and 
Gratian, on the authority of the canon law, style the pontiff the ΑἹ- 
mighty’s vicegerent, ‘who occupies the place, not of a mere man, 
but of the true God.’ According to Gregory the Second, ‘ The whole 
Western Nations reckoned Peter a terrestrial God,’ and the Roman 
pontiff, of course, succeeds to the title and the estate. This bias- 
phemy, Gratian copied into the canonlaw. ‘The emperor Constan- 
tine,’ says Nicholas the First, ‘ conferred the appellation of God on 
the pope, who, therefore, being God, cannot be judged by man.’ 

‘According to Innocent the Third, ‘the pope holds the place of tha 
true God.’ ‘The canon law, in the gloss, denominates the Roman 
hierarch, ‘our Lord God.’ ‘The canonists, in general, reckon the 
pope the one God, who hath all power, human and divine, in heaven 
and inearth. Marcellus in the Lateran council and with its full 
approbation, called Julius, ‘God on earth’(1). This was the act 
ot a general council, and, therefore, in the popish account. is the 
decision of infallibility. 


‘“’The works as well as the name of God have been ascribed to 
the pope, by Innocent, Jacobatius, Durand, Decius, Lainez, the 
canon law, and the Lateran council. ‘The pope and the Lord,’ in 
the statement of Innocent, Jacobatius and Decius, ‘ form the same 
tribunal, so that, sin excepted, the pope can do nearly all that God 
can do.’ Jacobatius, in his modesty, uses the qualifying expression 
nearly, which Decius, wiih more effrontery, rejects as unnecessary. 
The pontiff, say Jacobatius and Durand, ‘ possesses a plenitude of 
power, and none dare say to him, any more than to God, Lord, what 
dost thou? He can change the nature of things, and make nothing 
of something and something out of nothing.’ These are not the 
mere imaginations of Jacobatius, Durand and Decius; but are found, 
in all their absurdity in the canon law, which attributes to the”pope, 
the irresponsibility of the Creator, the divine power of performing 
the works of God, and making something out of nothing. The pope 
according to Lainez at the council of Trent, ‘has the power of dispens- 
ing with all laws, and the same authority as the Lord.’ This, ex- 
claimed Hugo, ‘is ascandal and impiety which equals a mortal to the 
immortal, and a man to God.’ An archbishop, in the last Lateran 
synod, called Julius ‘ prince of the world:’ and another orator styled 


(z). Papa vicem non puri hominis, sed veri Dei, gerens in terra. Jacob. 
VII. Barclay, 222. Pithou, 29. Decret. I. Tit. VII. ὁ. IIL Papalocuaaie: 
tenetinterris. Gibert, 2.9. Durand. 1. 51. Omnia Occidentis regna, velut 
Deum terrestrem habent. Labb. 8. 666. Bruy. 2. 1oo. Constantino Deum ap- 
peliatum, cum nec posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est. Labb. 
Ὁ. 1572. Dominus Deus noster Papa. Extrav. Tit. XIV. c.IV. Walsh. p. IX. 
Deus interris. Labb. 19. 731. Bin. 9. 54. 

Canonistz dicunt, Papam esse unum Deum, qui habet potestatem omnem 
in cceloetinterra. Protestatem omnem, et Divinam et humanam Pape tri- 
buunt, Barclay, 2, 4, 220. 


f 


Additional Notes. 511 


Leo, ‘the possessor of all power in heaven and in earth, who pre- 
sided over all the kingdoms ofthe globe.’ This blasphemy, the holy 
unerring Roman council heard without any disapprobation, and the 
pontiff with unmingled complacency. The man of sin then ‘sat in 
the temple of God, and showed himself that he was God.’ ‘Some 
popes,’ says Coquille, ‘ have allowed themselves to be called omni- 
patent.” (x). 

A fourth variety, on this subject makes the Pope superior to 
God. Equality with the Almighty, it might have been expected, 
would have satiated the ambition of the pontiff and satisfied the 
sycophancy of his minions. But this was not the giddiest step in the 
scale of blasphemy. ‘The superiority of the pope over the Creator, 
has been boldly and unblushingly maintained by pontiffs, theologians, 
canouists and councils. 


According to Cardinal Zabarella, ‘the pontiffs, in their arro- 
gance, assumed the accomplishment of all they pleased, even un- 
lawful things, and thus raised their power above the law of God.’ 
The canon law declares that, ‘the Pope, in the plenitude of his 
power is above right, can change the substantial nature of things, 
and transform unlawful into lawful’ (2). Bellarmine’s statement is 
of a similar kind. ‘The Cardinal affirms that, ‘the Pope can tran- 
substantiate sin into duty, and duty into sin.’ ‘He can,’ says the 
canon law, ‘dispense with right.’ Stephen, archbishop of Petraca, 
in his senseless parasitism and blasphemy, declared, in the council of 
the Lateran, that Leo possessed ‘power above all powers, both in 
heaven andinearth’ (1). Theson of perdition then ‘exalted himself 
above all that is called God.’ This brazen blasphemy passed in a 
general council, and is therefore in all its revolting absurdity, 
stamped with the seal of Roman infallibility. 


(7). Papa et Christus faciunt idem consistorium, ita quod, excepto peccato, 
potest Papa fere omnia facere, que potest Deus; Jacob. III. Pape nullus. 
audeat dicere, Domine, cur ita facis? Extrav.; Tit. IV. c. II. Sicut Deo dici 
non potest, cur ita facis? Ita nec in iis, quze sunt juris positivi, Pape potest 
dici, Cur hoc facis? Jacob. III. De aliquo facit nihil, mutando etiam rei na- 
turam. De nihilo, aliquid facit; Durand, 1. 50. Extrav.; De Tran. c. 1. q. 6. 
Coram te, hoc est, coram totius orbis principe; Labb. 19. 700. Tibi data est 
omnis potestas in ccelo et in terra. Super omnia regna mundi sedens: Labb. 
19. 920, 927. Du Pin. 3. 602. 2. Thess. 11.4. Aucuns ont enduré d’etre ap- 
pellez omntpotens; Coquille, 408. 

(2). Pontifices multa sibi arrogaverunt, et omnia se posse existiment, et 
quidquid liberit, etiam illicita; sicque supra Dei praeceptum potestatem illam 
extendisse; Zabarel. de Schism; Thuan. 6. 397. Habet plenitudinem potes- 
tatis, et supra jus est; Gibert, 2, 103. Immutat substantialem rei naturam 
puta faciendo de illegitimo, legitimum; Durand, I. 50. 

(1). Si Papa erraret precipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur 
ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes, malas; Bellarmin, IV. 5. Possumus 
supra jus dispensare; Decret. Greg. III. 8. 1V. Extrav. Comm. 208. Potestas. 
supra omnes potestates tam cceli. quam terrae; Labb. 19. 924. 


Ὁ12 Act I, of Ephesus. 


But the chief prerogative of the Roman hierarch seems to be his 
power of creating the Creator (2). Pascal and Urban plumed them- 
selves on this attribute, which, according to their own account, raised 
them above all subjection to earthly sovereigns. This, however, isa 
communicable perfection, and, in consequence, is become common to 
all the sacerdotal confraternity. His holiness keeps a transfer office 
at the Vatican, in which hecan make over this prerogative to all his 
deputies through Christendom. These in consequence can make 
and eat, create and swallow, whole thousands of pastry-gods every 
day. But these deities, in the opinion of their makers, are perhaps, 
not new gods, but merely new editions of the old one.”’ 


Of course Christ’s true Bishops and Presbyters, (who are priests 
in a higher sense than the sons of Aaron were, because they offer 
spirttual sacrifices (1. Peter ii., 5, 9; Rev. i., 6), hold to the doctrine 
of St. Cyril approved at Ephesus, and condemn that of Nestorius 
the heresiarch which was condemned there), all condemn the heresies 
of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and the Real Presence of 
Christ’s Divinity and of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist, that 
is, in the Thanksgiving: see note 606, pages 250-313. Furthermore 
none of the Six Councils ever gave the blasphemous title God to the 
Bishop of Rome. If he who apples the term God to the humanity 
of Christ, which is nevertheless the highest of all mere creatures, 
is anathematized for so doing, much more (a fortiori) is he anathe- 
matized who applies that term to any lesser creature, be it to the 
idolatrous and creature-invoking so called Bishop of Rome, or any 
other. 


For the information of those who have no time to study such 
matters it should be remarked that the Romish Canon Law referred 
to above is largely made up of the False Decretals of Isidore and 
other spurious matter, and of mere local Roman ena¢tments, and of 
decisions of mere local Western Councils, falsely styled General 
and Ecumenical, which the Eastern Church has always rejected; 
and that this spurious stuff has practically nullified and broken 
down in the idolatrous Romish Communion the sole Ecumenical 
Law, that is, the Canons of the first Four Ecumenical Councils, the 
only ones which made Canons. 


(2). Deum cuncta creantem creent; Hoveden; 268: Labb., 12., 960. Elé- 
vés a cet honneur supreme de créer le Createur; Bruy. 2. 535- 


Additional Notes. 519 


NOTE. C: 


On Cyril's language on page 42, text. 

Not only Cyril but the third Ecumenical Council itself in its 
Report to the Emperors testifies to the sickness of the Bishops at 
Ephesus; see page xxix. of the Preface to Pusey’s English transla- 
tion of Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 


NOTE D. 


On the expression of ‘‘Peter the Presbyter’ on page 418, text, ‘‘books of 
the most holy and most consecrated Fathers and of Bishops and 
of different martyrs’ and on the note on page 427 which states 
that the Ecumenical Council must not be understood to approve 
anything ina writer's works which they have not passed on, and 
indeed which they may not even have seen. 

We must understand that no passages of the Fathers quoted by 
Peter of Alexandria are to be considered as Hcumenically approved 
except such as were read in an Heumenical Council and treated as 
Orthodox. On page 4211 have said that certain matter on the 
Eucharist, genuine or spurious, attributed to Augustine or to Ain- 
brose is not approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and it 
should be added that it did not even come before them. So it can 
easily be shown that certain matter attributed, rightly or wrongly, 
to Gregory of Nazianzus, has never received the seal of an Ecu- 
menical Synod. But I have time here to mention specially only one 
more of the Fathers quoted as sound above in Act I. I mean Gre- 
gory of Nyssa who is justly condemned by Hooker in his Acclesiast- 
cal Polity, Book V., Chapter liii., Section 2, for Eutychianizing by 
in effect doing away the body of Christ by absorbing it into his Div- 
inity as a drop of water is absorbed into the sea. See the quota- 
tation from Gregory of Nyssa there. Eutyches, the heretic, who is 
condemned in Anathema XI. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council spirit- 
ualized or etherialized away Christ’s body or transubstantiated it 
into Divinity. 

And in Smith’s Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, volume 1, 
page 369, we read that, 

‘‘ Though Methodius combated Origen’s idealistic doctrine of 
the resurrection, yet several of the Eastern theologians adopted it, 
till the zealous Anti-Origenist party succeeded in the ensuing con- 


514 Act I. of Ephesus. 


troversies in establishing their doctrine, that the body raised from 
the tomb is in every respect identical with that which formed in this. 
life the organ of the soul.’’ Origen also is condemned in the same 
Anathema XI. 


On page 370 14., note 4, Hagenbach shows us that the ‘‘ Eastern 
theologians ’’ above mentioned are three out of the Twelve Fathers, 
some passages of whose writings are quoted above in the First Act. 
as authoritative: for he says: 


“Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, and partly also Basz 
the Great, adopted the views of Origen.’’ 


On the same page, note 5, ‘‘ Zheophilus of Alexandria,’’ one of 
the Twelve above is mentioned as opposed to the last named three 
on that point of the resurrection and the character of the risen body, 
so that aside from what is quoted above from the XII. Fathers, we 
shall find differences even among them, and shall find the Church in 
the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemning in Origen those errors. 
which on the resurrection, and on the character of the risen body 
some of them shared with him. 


On page 342, vol. 1, of Smith’s Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines 
we read that, 

‘“Gregory of Nyssa ventured—though with great caution—to 
revive the notion of Origen, that there was still hope of the final 
conversion of the devil.’’ See his references to Crigen in note 5 on 
page 344 of the same volume. 


The genuine remains of some of the Twelve Fathers aforesaid, 
are so few that they do not give any onea chance to fault them. 
This is true of Peter of Alexandria, Julius of Rome, Felix of Rome, 
and Theophilus of Alexandria, who is faulted by some but perhaps 
unjustly, for his course towards Chrysostom. Buttorun over rapidly 
the rest of the Twelve Orthodox Fathers mentioned above; 


Cyprian seems to have thought that departed saints pray for 
those on earth (7yler’s Primitive Christian Worship, pages 162-170, 
and 406, 407), andso share Christ’s prerogative of intercession there, 
which is the chief part of his present Mediatorial work, and which St. 
Cyril’s Anathema X. Economically Appropriates to the Divinity of 
God the Word. And that Anathema, with the whole Epistle in 
which it stands, was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
So that error of his is condemned by the Universal Church. For it 


> 


Additional Notes. 515 


is prerogative to Christ alone to intercede for us above. There is 
but one Mediator above (I. Tim. ii., 5); that is, but one Intercessor 
there, to whom we are invited to go as our Advocate (I. John 11., 1, 
2), and, blessed be God, His Intercession is all sufficient (Heb. vii., 
25). And in the context Paul shows by the Holy Ghost that 
Christ’s Intercession is a part of His High Priestly function, and 
therefore, of course, prerogative to Him. It is a part of His ‘‘ wa- 
changeable Priesthood’’ (Heb. vii., 24). Here on earth while living 
we may intercede for each other, that is, so far mediate, that is, as 
mediate means, go between for each other, but as on earth Christ’s 
foretype, the Aaronic ‘‘/igh Priest alone,’ (Heb. τσ... 7), could enter 
into the most holy place to intercede for Israel, as it was therefore 
prerogative to him to intercede there, so the Holy Ghost teaches by 
Paul that it is prerogative to Christ our Great High Priest to inter- 
cede for us in the most holy place, heaven above, of which the old 
Holy Place was a foretype (Heb. ix., 1-28). And we may no 
more make other intercessors, that is, mediators, there, than we may 
make other gods besides Jehovah there (I. Tim. ii., 5). The 
Aaronic priests could enter the holy place to perform their minister- 
ial functions, but not the most holy place. That was reserved for 
the High Priest (Heb. ix., 6, 7). So, Christ’s ministers can perform 
their high hieratic functions in the holy places, His churches on 
earth, in offering spzritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus 
Christ (1. Peter ii., 5, 9): higher sacrifices than the Mosaic precisely 
because they are ‘‘ sfz7ztual:’’ whereas, those of the Mosaic dispen- 
sation were merely ‘‘ carnal,’’ that is, ‘‘fleshly ordinances imposed on 
them until the time of Reformation’? (Heb. ix., 10). But they can 
not sacrifice in the most holy place in heaven where our Great High 
Priest alone intercedes for us (I. Tim. ii., 5; I. John ii., 1, 2; and 
’ Heb. vii., 25; John xiv., 13, 14; John xv., 16; and John xvi., 23, 24, 
26, 27). ‘These gracious promises of mediation above and interces- 
sion above are all regarding Christ’s sole Mediatorship (I. Tim. ii., 
5), and in John xiv., 6, Christ settles this whole matter and pro- 
claims Himself to be the So/e Mediator and the Sole Advocate and 
the Sole Intercessor above when he says and decrees: ‘‘lam the 
way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.’” 
Consequently no one can do the prerogatively Mediatorial, that is, 
the go-between-God-and-man work of interceding for us in heaven, 
no departed saint, be it the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, or any other 


510 Att 2 στη: 


but Christ, who, as possessing the prerogatively divine attributes of 
omnipresence and omniscience, can hear our prayers, and as man 
can ‘‘ be touched with the feeling of our infirmities’ (Heb. iv., 15), 
and as man can pray to the Father for us. 


Of Ambrose’s alleged idolatry on the Eucharist I have spoken 
in the note on page 427 above. And an alleged passage of his 
favors the invocation of angels and of martyrs (Smith’s Hagen- 
bach’s istory of Doéirines, volume 1, pages 338, 330)auouE 
both those errors are condemned impliedly by the Third Ecumenical 
Council, for it, in effect, in its Anathema X. makes, like the Scrip- 
ture (I. Tim. ii., 5), but one Sole Mediator in heaven, the Son, who, 
as St. Cyril of Alexandria explains, as God hears prayer, and as man 
answers it (a). St. Cyprian therefore grievously erred in teaching 
against that doctrine. But all God’s saints have been fallible men, 
far from perfect. God alone is perfect. Moses erred and so did 
Aaron and were punished for it (Numbers xx., 12; Deut. 1. 37; 
Deut. iii., 26; Deut. xxxii., 49-52; Psalm cvi., 16, 32>5¢3)e 
Peter was rebuked for his temporary apostasy and for his hypocrisy, 
(Matt. xxvi., 57, 588, 69-75; Matt. xiv., 53, 54, 66-72; πῈῸῸ τὰ 
54-62, and John xviii., 13-18, 25-27; Compare Matt. xxvi., 31-36; 
Mark xiv., 27-32; Luke xxii., 31-35; and John xiii., 36-38 inclu- 
sive; Galat. ii., 11-21 inclusive). Aaron and Solomon became in- 
volved in the guilt of idolatry and were punished for it (Exod. 
xxxii.; Deut. ix., 20, and the whole chapter in which it stands: I. 
Kings xi., 1-43). Indeed often in Holy Writ we find God rebuking 
His servants; and Scripture records their faults that we may shun 
them. And there is hardly a Father who has written much whom 
critics Anglican, or Greek, or Latin do not fault for some error in 
doctrine, discipline or rite. They were fallible men as all admit. 
But the Six Ecumenical Synods as guided by the Holy Ghost 
taught only what is true and consonant with Scripture, and, as 
being Holy-Ghost-led, were infallible. 

Gregory the Great, that is, Gregory of Nazianzus, is accused of 
being an Origenist on the resurrection of the body (Smith’s Hagen- 
bach’s History of Doétrines, vol. 1, pages 369, text, and 370, note 4, 
quoted above). And if we may accept the text of him given in 


(a). See his language in the note on page 378 above, and in the context; 
indeed all of note 688, of which it is part. 


Additional Notes. 517 


Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, he held to the co-worship of Christ’s 
humanity with His Divinity contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria as 
approved by Ephesus, and to Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council, as we see in notes 183, 582, 676, 677, 678 and 679 above, 
especially pages 79, 225, and the text on pages 78-85, 221-224, 331, 
332, and notes on pages 97, 108-112 and 356. 

Basil the Great is accused of holding the same view as Gregory 
of Nazianzus as to worshipping Christ’s humanity with his Divinity 
as just stated. I have referred to him in this note above as accused 
by Hagenbach of Origenism on the resurrection body. 

In the same place I have mentioned errors of which Gregory of 
Nyssa stands charged. 

The remains of the two remaining Fathers, Atticus and Amphi- 
lochius, are so scanty that we can not tell what they held on some 
points and we therefore here dismiss them. 


NOTE E. 


On Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18 on pages 472-474 above, and on tts absurd 
and blasphemous sequences. 


It is a logical and fair principle that he who is responsible for 
premises is responsible for their conclusion. Thus, for instance, if 
a man should say’ that there are two apples on a table in a room and 
two more apples on another table in that room; and then one should 
draw the conclusion that there must be four apples in all in that room, 
the assertor of the premises must accept that conclusion as the logical 
and necessary result of his premises. And if he should be socranky 
or foolish or partisan as to deny it because he holds to some favorite 
doxy which demands that there shall be accepted the conclusion 
that there are only one or two or three apples there, all would cry out 
against him as absurd. But if he should go further and say: ‘TZ 
admit that appearances may seem to teach that there are four, but we 
must believe that there are only three in alland acceptit as a great mys- 
tery because my pet theory or tsm requires tt to be so,’’ would not every 
intelligent and wise man at once say: You are talking nonsense and 
absurdity and utter folly. You are not speaking like a rational man, 
Sor there ts no mystery at allin the matter, for two and two make four, 
not three only: so that your assertion ts a plain contradiétion and falsity. 


And logicians in all ages have admitted as legitimate and deci- 


518 Act I. of Ephesus. 


sive the way of arguing which we call Reductio ad absurdum, that is, 
the showing that certain premises asserted by an opponent necessa- 
rily result in an absurdity. 


And so Nestorius uses it against Cyril. For supposing him to be 
an Apollinarian and therefore to hold that Christ’s humanity had been 
swallowed up in his Divinity, and hence to hold that the actual sub- 
stance of Christ’s humanity is not eaten in the Eucharist as he, Nes- 
torius, maintained, but that we actually eat the Eternal Substance 
of Christ’s Divinity instead in the Rite, he argues as in note 606, 
pages 251 and 252 above, that Christ in John vi., 56, 57, speaks not 
of eating His Divinity but of eating His flesh. And he thinks he 
has a clear case when he writes there that Cyril asserted an eating 
of the Divinity of the Word in the Rite, whereas he, Nestorius, held 
that we eat humanity; and, at the end, he triumphantly asks, 
‘What do we eat, the divinity or the humanity ?”’ 


Here Nestorius attempts to show, 


1, that in holding to the literal eating of Christ’s humanity in 
the sacrament, he held to the plain sense of John vi., 56, 57, and 
that Cyril denied it; : 


And 2, and here comes in the Reductioad ahsurdum, Nestorius 
charges that Cyril by denying the actual eating of Christ’s human- 
ity was forced to hold on the Eucharist the utter absurdity that we 
eat Divinity! that is, that a creature eats his Creator! 


To this Cyril at once replies as in the note on page 253, above, 
“The Nature of Divinity ἐς not eaten.’ And this he repeats in place 
after place. See the passages of Cyril on pages 253, 254 and 255 
where he puts the eating of Divinity among the “‘ zmfosszbzlities,”’ 
see also pages 256-260. Compare pages 272-275. 

So Nestorius fails to show that Cyril held to the absurdity that 
Christ’s Divinity is eaten, or to any premises which forced him to 
that absurdity. 


And further on, on pages 260-276, Cyril shows that Nestorius’ 
dogma that we eat Christ’s real human flesh in the Eucharist results 
in the blasphemous absurdity of Cannibalism. So the Reductio ad 
absurdum applies to Nestorius’ heresy on the Eucharist, not to S!. 
Cyril’s Orthodoxy on it. 


Additional Notes. 519 


On pages 79, 80, 81-86, 87, 88, 89, 90, Cyril shows that Nes- 
torius’ worship of Christ’s mere separate humanity results in ἀνθρω- 
πολατρεία, that is, in worshipping a man, that is, in creature worship, 
that is, in faganism. As Nestorius and his champion Theodoret, 
held to the worship of that humanity as consubstantiated with the 
bread and wine in the Eucharist, of course Cyril’s condemnation of 
‘ its worship would apply there, as it would elsewhere also. 


As Cyril in his writings shows, 1, that he did not hold to any 
real presence of the Substance of the Divinity of Christ in the Rite, 
but only of His grace by His Spirit; and that he did not hold that 
Christ’s Divinity is eaten there, pages 250-260 above; 


And 2, as he held that there is no real presence of the sub- 
stance of Christ’s humanity in the Rite, and that we do not eat it 
there, pages 260-276 above; 


He hence, 3, teaches that he can not be charged with the ab- 
surdity of eating Divinity, or of the cannibalism of eating actual 
flesh and drinking actual blood. And that ended Nestorius’ attack 
on him. 


We have seen on pages 260-276 above how ably Cyril refuted 
Nestorius’ corporal real presence heresy and corporal manducation 
heresy by showing that they result in cannibalism: and on pages 
250-260 above how Nestorius falsely accused: him of the absurdity 
of eating God the Word’s Divinity. No one at that time held to 
the real presence of the Substance of His Divinity and to the real 
presence of the substance of His humanity there, and besides to the 
eating of both His Natures there. 


But alas! in later times men have invented a Two-Nature Real 
Presence in the Rite, and a T'wo-Nature manducation there. For 
both those heresies exist to-day among those who hold to Transub- 
stantiation and also among those who hold to Consubstantiation. 


And as St. Cyril used the Reductio ad absurdum against Nestor- 
ius’ eating of the substance of Christ’s human flesh and drinking the 
substance of Christ’s human blood, by showing that that error re- 
sults in cannibalism, let us imitate him and show some of the absurd- 
ities which are the logical results of Transubstantiation and of 
Consubstantiation. For though I may in places below mention only 
Transubstantiation any logical mind can at once see that some at 
least of my remarks apply as well to one as to the other, and that 


δ20 Act I. of Ephesus. 


in some things the Reduction toan Absurdity applies to one as well 
as to the other. I begin: Transubstantiation then results in absurd- 
ities, for surely each of the following conclusions from it is a veductio 
ad absurdum. 


1. Rome professes to believe in the Infallibility of an Kcumen- 
ical Council. And yet Rome rejects the teaching of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria in his Longer Epistle above, andin his Anathema XI. 
which is a part of it. which are diametrically contradictory of 
Transubstantiation, and are approved by the Third Ecumenical 
Synod, a true World-Council, because it represented the whole 
Church, West and East. It therefore plainly rejects the Infallibility 
of the Universal Church speaking in an Ecumenical Synod. Τί re- 
jects the Third Council, not by name but in effect, by approving the 
error of Transubstantiation in two local Councils, the first, of all the 
West, the Fourth Lateran of A. D. 1215; the second of a part of the 
West only, that is, the local Synod of Trent, A. D. 1545—1563, not 
to speak of other merely Western Councils. 


2. The Apostle Peter in Acts il.,.27, 31, teaches that)@iimce- 
flesh that lay in the grave saw no corruption. And all admit 
that his present glorified and spiritual body can neither die (Romans 
vi., 9, and Rev. i., 18), nor become rotten: for corruption is the re- 
sult of death, which is the result of sin (Rom. v., 12). But all ad- 
mit that Christ’s body was sinless and is sinless. 


But Rome strangely enough, confesses that the species of 
Christ’s transubstantiated and actual body, that is, all that our 
senses cognize of it, (and they cognize it to be exactly what it was 
before consecration), can Jecome rotten! And Rome’s doctrine that 
the substance of the bread and wine have been changed by conse- 
cration into the Substance of the actual Divinity of Christ, and into 
the substance of His real flesh and blood is contradicted by St. 
Cyril’s Longer Epistle and its Anathema XI. as well as by our 
senses. And the consecrated species therefore are the species of the 
substance of actual bread and wine, and proofs of the presence of 
that substance, the Third Council of the whole Church being wit- 
ness by necessary implication, for it teaches by approving Cyril’s 
teaching on the Eucharist that neither of Christ’s Two Natures are 
in the Rite, but that leavened bread and wine are. Consequently 
there is no transubstantiation of them. 


Additional Notes. 521 


Yet Rome in her Rubrics ‘‘ Regarding defects occurring in the 
celebration of the Mass,” section x., ‘‘ On Defects occurring in the 
Ministration itself,’’ number 14, orders as follows: 

“ΤΕ the priest vomit the Eucharist, and if the species appear 
entire, let them be reverently taken, unless nausea ensue: in that case 
indeed let the consecrated species be cautiously separated [from the 
rest of the vomit] and laid up in some sacred place tll they become 
rotten,and after that let them be cast into the sacrarium. Butif the 
species do not appear, let the vomit be burned, and let the ashes be 
thrown into the sacrarium.”’ 

Lewis in his note on the above on page 371 of his work entitled 
The Bible, the Missal, and the Breviary, remarks: 

‘ven the vomited host is still to be worshipped. Questions of 
corrupt, rotten, and musty hosts were the questions of the school- 
men. We find them in Missals prior to the Reformation, though, 
strange to say, this chapter, De Defectibus [from which the above 
rubric is a quotation] has been enlarged rather than shortened since 
then, as if this infatuation were permitted by God to brand Rome in 
her Book of Public Worship with folly; and that the day may be 
hastened when God and man shall arise in indignation at this filthy 
mummery, and exclaim, ‘I will spue thee out of my mouth.’ ’’ 


In the same work, page 53, Lewis exclaims on this rubric: 


‘““The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ becoming cor- 
rupt and vomited! If the worst enemy of Rome had forged this 
vile nonsense, we could have understood it; but what shall we say 
of the Church calling herself “216 mother and mistress of all Churches,’ 
not only permitting but authorizing, from age to age, such filth to 
pollute the book of her public devotions. No wonder Rome, in her 
manuals for the use of the laity, leaves this chapter under the 
bushel of a dead language. The laity, having no previous scholastic 
training to mitigate this natural revolt, might find such rubrics un- 
bearable.”’ 

I have seen in some Romish writer an attempted explanation of 
the fact attested by the above rubric, by asserting that there is a 
further mystery after consecration, that is, there is another transub- 
stantiation back again of the body and blood of Christ into the wafer 
and wine forasmuch as they are corruptible. I think the writer was 
the effeminate apostate to Romanism, Frederick William Faber. 


522 Act I, of Ephesus. 


I would add that Prof. Philip Schaff, D. D., in his article 
‘‘Patristic and Scholastic Theology,’ in the New York /ndependent of 
April 13, 1893, speaking of ‘‘ the Scholastic Systems’’ of the Middle 
Ages, writes: 


‘“'They turned theology into a logical skeleton. They squeezed 
the soul out of it and left it a mere corpse (corpus divinitatis). ‘They 
neglected the study of the Scriptures, but discussed with great 
seriousness such silly questions as whether an angel could dance on 
the eye of a needle, and what effect the Sacrament would have upon 
a mouse. Some answered that the sacred wafer would sanctify the 
mouse; others that it would kill it; still others answered more wisely, 
because less foolishly, that it would have no effect at all, because 
the wafer was eaten accidentaliter, not Sacramentaliter.”’ 


3. There is still another blasphemy which is the result of tran- 
substantiation heresy, and that is the impiety of asserting that the 
One Christ of any one transubstantiatiated Host, that is, ‘‘ the body 
and blood together with the soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 
to use the language of the Romish Council of Trent, Session XIII., 
on the Eucharist, Chapter vili., Canon I., can be broken up into as 
many particles as the celebrant wills, and that each of those particles 
immediately on the breaking of the wafer becomes a ‘‘ whole Christ, 
body and blood, soul and Divinity,’ so that while there is never more 
than one Person of the Father, and never more than one Person of the 
Holy Ghost, nevertheless on a day like Haster when perhaps there 
are 20,000,000 of communicants at the Romish altars, when accord- 
ing to Rome’s doctrine, each one of them receives ‘‘ whole Christ, 
body and blood, soul and Divinity,’’ there are actually 20,000,000 
Second Persons of the adorable Trinity, each entire! Sothat as Rome 
as the great whore who sitteth on many waters (Rev. xvii., I, 15 
and 18), is always somewhere in the round earth celebrating her 
Mass and breaking her wafers, it is mever exact, according to that 
blasphemy, to say that there are only three Persons in the Trinity, 
for there are always scores or hundreds of the Second Person alone. 


I have space only to summarize the heresies of the Latins as 
well as those of the Greeks on this point and on other points con- 
nected with it, first premising that as both still profess to hold to 
the Third Ecumenical Council, they in effect profess to reject the 
mediaeval or modern Heresies below specified. 


Additional Notes. 523 


(A). As tothe Latin views: The Latin holds that the whole sub- 
‘stance of the unleavened wafer of the Latin Mass is transubstantiated 
by the words, 7hzs zs my body, into the body of Christ, and the whole 
substance of the wine by the words, 7125 zs my blood, into His blood 
and that ‘‘ the whole Christ ts contained under each speciesand under 
every part of each species when separated,’ and that ‘‘7z the * * * 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, the only Begotten Son of God,is * * % 
to be adored with even the worship external of latria (a),’’ and condemns 
those who deny that it is ‘‘/o be solemnly borne about in processions,’’ 
and that it is ‘‘to be proposed to the people to be worshipped,’’ and con- 
demns those who charge Romanists with being ‘‘zdo/afers’’ for such 
worship of the Host: Sesszon Χ 777. of the Romish Council of Trent, 
Canons I., II., III., and VI., pages 77 and 78 of Buckley’s transla- 
tion: compare the same Session, Chapters I., III., 1V., and V., on 
pages 71-74, id. In Chapter III., page 73, id., Trent asserts ‘‘ that 
zmmediately after consecration, the very body of our Lord, and 4715 very 
blood, together with Fis soul and Divinity, exist under the species of bread 
and wine, but the body indeed under the species of bread and the blood 
under the species of wine by the force of the words.’’ According to 
‘Trent here the Substance of Christ’s Divinity is with them by the 
fiction of a necessary concomitance everywhere of the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity and the substance of His humanity, all of which 
is condemned by necessary implication in the foregoing extracts 
from Cyril: for the Two Natures are together, but in heaven alone, 
where alone the substance of each of them is. 

(B). As to the Greeks: Cyril Lucar, of blessed memory, in 
his Confession comes the closest of the modern Greeks to the view of 
St. Cyril of Alexandria and of Ephesus, for he rejects Transubstan- 
tiation and, in effect, seems to have held their doctrine, though he 
used some of the scholastic terminology, such as veal presence, but 
seemingly in the Calvinistic sense of a veal presence not of the Szé- 
stance of God the Word or of the substance of His humanity, but of 
God’s grace. See Kimmel’s A/onumenta /idet Ecclesiae Orientals, 
John Mason Neale, an abominable traitor to Anglicanism and to the 


(2). Buckley in his translation of Zhe Canons and Decrees of the Council 
of Trent, page 74, note ‘‘g,’’ explains δα γα to mean ‘‘ worship of the highest 
order. The Romanists make a distinction between the degrees of worship.’’ 
They do that contrary to the use of terms in God’s Word to excuse their crea- 
ture-worship and idolatry. 


524 Act Ll. of Ephesus. 


worship of God alone, in his infamous remarks on Cyril in his 2725- 
tory of the Eastern Church, for which he deserves anathema, shows. 
that Cyril was thoroughly sound on the Eucharist and in accord 
with St. Cyril, his predecessor in the see of Alexandria, and with 
Ephesus: see it, Vol. II., pages 424, 428, 432, 442, 445, 446, 451. 

By the machinations, often repeated, of the Jesuits, and their 
tools, certain Romanized Greeks, notably Cyril of Beroea and such 
like, he was constantly worried, and at last most foully put to death 
by the Turks at their instigation. God grant that Martyr for His 
truth a happy resurrection, and now and forever a blessed reward 
for Christ’s sake, Whose sole mediation and sole intercession on high 
he championed in an idolatrous age and among an idolatrous people, 
whom with much of pain and toil and to his own peril and loss, he 
so zealously strove to reform and save, and whom he loved with an 
undying love. In later ages, and in evil times, when the Eastern 
Church and State were degraded under the Turks for their degen- 
eracy, corruption of their faith, practical rejection of much of the 
teaching of the Six Synods, idolatry, and creature-worship, Cyril 
was “ἃ burning and a shining light,’’ and some of his people and 
Church ‘‘ were willing for a season to rejoice in hts light’ (John v., 
35). For alas! it might well be said of that part of the Christian 
Israel that before him, it had ‘‘ for a long season been without the true 
God, and without a teaching priest, and without law,’’ (II. Chron. xv., 
3); for while neither was without some knowledge of the true God, 
both were without Him in the sense of failing to worship Him as He 
demands, but worshipped Him through images painted or graven, 
and angered him to burning wrath by that and by their invocation 
of creatures, and so brought on themselves, the one the curse of the 
Assyrian and the Babylonian; the other, the Arab, the Turk, and 
the Tartar. 7 

Nevertheless, I believe that within a century the Greeks and 
the Slays and the Roumanians will anathematize the iconodulic 
conventicle of Nicaea and allits aiders and abetters, and will march 
back to the faith of their fathers, the Six Councils, and to God’s 
rich blessings in Church and State again. The Lord hasten it in 
its time for Christ’s sake. Amen. And so will the Orthodox part 
of the West do, and we shall have a true Seventh Ecumenical 
Council, and a formal deposition by it of the idolatrous so-called 
Bishop of Rome, and a formal! excommunication of all who hold to 


Additional Notes. 525, 
him, and a sound prelate and sound clerics in his place and a reign 
of Christ on earth. ‘‘for He must reign, till He hath put all enemies 
wader Fiis feet, (1. Cor. xv-, 25): 

But other Greek Confessions, wnose authors were evidently in- 
fluenced by late Romish Theology, teach bare Transubstantiation, 
as for instance the so-called Orthodox Confession put forth by Peter 
Mogila, who became Metropolitan of Kieff, A. D. 1632, and approved 
afterwards by the Russians and Greeks, pages 126, 180, Part I. of 
Kimmel; and the Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 
A. D. 1672, pages 457, 458 and 460, Part I. in Kimmel. 

So the consecrated Eucharist is to be worshipped according to 
the so-called Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila, page 126, Part I. 
in Kimmel, and by the Confession of Dositheus, page 460, Part I. in 
Kimmel; and by the Synod of Constantinople, A. D. 1672, page 218, 
Pact 11. 1Π| Kammel. 

The Confession of Metrophanes, well argues for infant Com- 
munion from John vi., 53, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man 
and drink Hs blood ye have no life in you, see pages 125, 126, Part 
II. of Kimmel. 

The idolatrous Greek Dositheus, denies that Christ’s body de- 
scends from heaven to the altars at the consecration, but asserts 
that by consecration the leavened bread on the altars is transubstan- 
tiated and becomes one and the same with that body of Christ which 
is in the heavens; page 460, Part I. of Kimmel. Yet the idolatrous 
party among the Greeks hold, like the Latins that whole Christ, 
God and Man, is received by each communicant: so that they are 
about as absurd as the Latins because they so multiply the Second 
Person of the Trinity. 

But all these late Greek Confessions, except Cyril Lucar’s, and 
all the mediaeval and modern Roman utterances are utterly without 
authority and heretical, because they oppose the decisions of Ephe- 
sus in favor of Cyril of Alexandria on the Eucharist. 


4. According to the doctrine of Concomitance, every Romish 
priest, who unlike their laity in later times, takes both the wafer and 
the wine, and every Christian lay-communicant who took both 
kinds in the long earlier ages when that was the custom, as it still is 
among the Greeks, has in him, after partaking of both, two Second 
Persons of the Trinity and two whole humanities of Christ. For 


526 Hot DT. tof  ύξεξδες. 


the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II., Chapter IV., Of the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, Question XXXII., page 230 of Buckley’s 
translation, says, 


‘There are some tnings which we say are in the Sacrament by 
the force and efficacy of consecration, for as those words [of consecra- 
tion] effect what they signify, theologians have said that whatever 
is expressed by the form of the words is in the sacrament by the 
virtue of the sacrament. ‘Thus, if it happened that any thing were 
entirely separated from the rest, they teach, that in the sacrament 
would be contained that thing only which the form would express, 
and not the rest. But some things are contained in the Sacrament, 
because united to those that are expressed by the form; for whereas 
the form used in the consecration of the bread signifies the body of 
the Lord, when it is said, 7hzs zs my body, the body itself of Christ 
the Lord will be in the Eucharist by force of the Sacrament. But 
since to the body are united the blood, soul and divinity, all these 
will be in the sacrament, not indeed by virtue of the consecration, 
but as united to the body. And these are said to be in the sacrament 
by concomttance, in which manner it is clear, that in the sacrament is 
contained Christ whole and entire; for when any two things are 
actually united, where one is, there also of necessity must the other 
be. It therefore follows that Christ whole and entire ts so contained 
as well under the species of bread, as of wine; that even as under the 
species of bread are truly present not only the body, but also the 
blood and Christ entire, so also under the species of wine, are con- 
tained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entzre.”’ 


Hence of course, there are two whole Second Persons of the 
Trinity in every one who receives both kinds in the sacrament, each 
being whole Christ, body, and blood, soul and Divinity; that is the 
whole Substance of Christ’s humanity and the whole Substance of 
His eternal and Consubstantial Divinity. As the priest takes both 
kinds this remark will specially apply to him. 


It will also follow that inasmuch as wherever the Logos is, He is 
to be worshipped, every communicant must therefore worship two 
such whole Christs in the priest’s belly after consecration and par- 
taking, and he must worship also two more such whole Christs in 
his own belly, and two more such whole Christs in the belly of each 
communicant present. In other words, if there be a hundred present 


Additional Notes. 527 
πον τ’. τ ea ee ee 
who have received both kinds, as among the Romanized Greeks now, 
for instance, he must logically and devoutly worship two hundred 
such whole Christs in the one hundred bellies present, but only until he 
thinks they are digested. Is not this logical outcome of Roman 
doctrine abominable trash and blasphemy? And is it not criminal 
to defend or dodge it? What shall we think of a man who has no 
more reverence for Christ and his religion and for the doctrine of 
the Third Council of our authorized teacher, Christ’s whole Church, 
than to teach it! Does not such a wretch well deserve the penalty 
laid on him by Christ, that we shall regard him as a heathen man 
anda publican bound by His Universal Church on earth and bound in 
heaven (Matt. xviii.,17,18) for turning our ‘‘veasonable service” (λογικὴν 
λατρείαν, Rom. xii., 4), into that sort of folly and ridicule and poly- 
theism or worship of hundreds and thousands and on Easter even of 
millions of Second Persons of the Trinity? 

The reader will see how St. Cyril and even Nestorius agree that 
the Eternal Substance of Christ’s Divinity is not present in the 
Eucharist, and that so both agree against the Romish do¢trine of 
Concomitance, and that Cyril goes further and denies that there is any 
real presence of His humanity there; so the two Natures are not 
concomitant in the rite but absent in heaven, that is, concomitant 
there alone, that is, together there by their two substances. The 
rise of the Romish doctrine of Concomitance seems to have been 
somewhat as follows: First, some misunderstanding the words, 7/zs 
is my body: This is my blood, fell into the error of believing that 
Christ’s real body and blood were there. But they could see that 
He had not said, This is my Dzvénity. Hence in order that they 
might make a presence of Christ’s two Natures in the rite, and so 
make it more to their own liking, they forsook the faith of St. Cyril 
approved by the whole Church at Ephesus, and invented the then 
new-fangled doctrine of Concomitance, (a) contrary to the Scripture and 
to Common Sense, for it entails the indefinite and unlimited multi- 
plication of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, so that it is not 
the mere Zetradism which St. Cyril charges upon the Nestorians as 
the consequence of their worshipping Christ’s humanity (see above, 
pages 90-94, note), but a worship of many Fours, even millions of 


(a). Elliott on Romanism, vol. 1, page 276 (N. Y. 1851), states that as late 
as ‘‘the ninth century * * * no one maintained that the sou. and DI- 


vinity of Christ were contained in the Eucharist.” 


528 Add. of Ephesus. 


whole Christs, each body and blood, soul and divinity. Yet the 
Romanist and the Greek Transubstantiationist were driven to the in- 
vention of Concom'tance, for if they had said that the bread and wine 
could be transubstantiated into Divinity,they would have landed in 
the Apollinarian heresy that a created thing may be changed, that 
is transubstantiated, into the uncreated God. 


The Scriptures teach us that God the Word, His very and 
eternal Substance, came out of the Father (see the Greek of John 
viii., 42, and John xvi., 28, and of Heb. i., 3): and that doctrine is 
asserted in the Creed of Nicaea, and in the Anathema at its end. 
And Holy Writ and the two Ecumenical Creeds teach that He has 
ascended up to heaven in the Man whom He put on in Mary’s 
womb, where alone His Substance is to remain ‘‘ γε the times of 
restitution of all things,’’ (Acts iii., 21), though Heis with us always, 
not by His Divine Substance but by the sand¢tifying and saving in- 
fluences of that blessed and Eternal Spirit whom He sent as His 
Vicar, and by His infinite attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, 
and omnipotence. All that is Scriptural and easy to understand. 


But, according to the Roman Transubstantiation, hundreds of 
millions, aye, thousands of millions of whole Christs, body and 
blood, soul and Divinity, have been eaten since the Eucharist was 
first instituted. Now as the Father is admitted by all to be the sole 
source of the Logos, that is, the Consubstantial Word, were they 
born out of Him as the first Logos was? Or did the first Logos create 
uncreated Logoses out of His own Substance? And where are all 
those hundreds and thousands of millions of Logoses now? If they 
are co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father they can not perish 
but must be somewhere in the Universe. And as they are so nu- 
merous, according to the Romish idolater, there must by this time 
be perhaps as many of them as there are human beings, and accord- 
ing to Rome, their number is increasing at every Eucharist ! !! 


And so there must be as many whole and perfect humanities of 
Christ!!! For they being sinless can never perish either. 


Are not such logical and necessary consequences of Roman per- 
version of the Lord’s Supper enough to make its deluded votaries 
stop and think, and to forsake it, and to go back to the infallible 
doctrine of the Third Council which is religious and sensible and ut- 
terly free from all such absurdities and blasphemies ? 


Additional Notes. 529 


NOTE F. 


THE TWENTY PASSAGES FROM NESTORIUS, FOR WHICH HE WAS 
CONDEMNED AND DEPOSED BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH IN 
Its THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 


At this point for the understanding and remembrance ol these 
very important passages and their condemnation by the Universal 
Church in its Third Synod, I will present in a table their salient 
errors, and the places in Cyril of Alexandria’s Five Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blasphemties of Nestorius, where they are quoted and an- 
swered, and also some other places in his writings where some of 
them are referred to, and finally will tell what Anathemas of Cyril 
or of the Fifth Council condemn them. 


Column 1, beginning at the left, is the number of the Passage. 
Column 2, tells where in Nestorius’ Sermons it is found. Most of 
those passages of Nestorius are quoted in Cyril’s Five Book Contradic- 
fion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. Marius Mercator has given us a 
Latin translation of parts of those Sermons. If any one of Nestorius’ 
20 Passages is not quoted in Cyril’s Five Book Contradiétion, the 
space will be left blank. But Marius Mercator gives only the Latin. 
His rendering differs in places from the Latin in Coleti Cozc., tome 
Ἴ ΤΟΙ 1005 to 1074. 


Column 3 tells the error or errors taught by Nestorius in each 
passage, and states what Anathema of Cyril or the Fifth Synod con- 
demns it. And Column 4 tells where Cyril of Alexandria quotes 
and refutes it, whether in his ive Book Contradiction above mentioned, 
or elsewhere on the Incarnation, outside of his XII. Anathemas, 
though I do not profess to give every passage of Cyril elsewhere 
against those heresies, but the reader can find them under their prop- 
er heads in the indexes to those topics in tome 48 of Migne’s Patro- 
logia Latina, col. 886 to col. 907; see also the indexes to Cyril’s 
voluminous writings, though I would kindly warn him that indexes 
compiled by Pusey and by others of that school are not always ac- 
curate in stating the contents of a work. 


The capital letters in parentheses in the third column tell what 
class of errors the one which follows each belongs to. 

Class A means denial of the Incarnation of God the Word. 

Class B means denial of the Church doctrine of ascribing the 


_ 530 Act I. of Ephesus. 


human things of the Man put on by God the Word to God the 
Word Economically, that is, denial of the doctrine of Aconomic Ap- 
propriation, 

Class C consists of the passage or passages which assert the 
relative sonship of Christ’s humanity. 


Class D comprises those passages which apply the term God 
to the creature, that is, to ‘he Man put on by God the Word. This 
is a form of Man-Service, chat is, of worshipping a Man. 


Class EK consists of those passages which teach relative bowing 
to the Man taken by God the Word, that is, because of his relation to 
God the Word as His temple. ‘This of course is heathenish creature- 
service, aye, worse than heathenish, because committed by Chris- 
tians who have the light. Bowing 15 here an act of religious wor- 
ship, and as the most common act of service, is used for all acts of 
worship. 


Class F putting the creature, that is, the Man taken by God 
the Word, on the same level of dzvine dignity as the uncreated Word 
of God, which is a form of Wan-Service, that is, of Creature-Service, be- 
cause it is giving honor prerogative to Divinity to a creature. 


Class G means the passage or passages which ascribe God’s 
glory to a creature, that is, to the Man taken by the Word. This 
also isa form of Alan-Service. Under this head I have put a pass- 
sage which ascribes co-session with God to a creature. 


Class H includes those passages which divide the One Christ 
into the Nestorian Duality, and divide the names, etc. of the Son 
between His Two Natures and do not come under any of the other 
heads. Under this class come all the Passages of Nestorius which 
deny Cyril’s and the Church’s doctrine of Economic Appropriation. 
The result of all that is to make Christ a mere man and all worship 
of him mere J7Zan- Worship. 

Class I includes those passages which deny that God the Word 
is our High Priest, and assert that a creature is, and so tend to 
Man-Service, that is, to the fundamental error of worshipping a. 
creature. 

Class J consists of the passage or passages which teach the 
absurdity that the sinless Man made an offering for himself. 

Class K consists of the passage or passages which teach the 
eating of the actual flesh of Christ’s humanity and the drinking of 


Additional Notes. 531 


the actual blood of that humanity in the Lord’s Supper. This is 
branded by Cyril of Alexandria as ‘‘Cannzbalism.’’ see note 606 
above, pages 250-313. 

Class L, consists of the passage or passages which assert that 
all opposed to Nestorius’ Man-Service and other errors are in ignor- 
ance and error. 

Every one of the foregoing passages from Nestorius either 
teaches creature-service, as for instance Class E, or in its re- 
sults tends to it, as, for instance, Class I, which denies that God the 
Word is our Sole High Priest, that is, our Sole Mediator in heaven, 
the things of the Man being Economically ascribed to Him. 

Or to divide them further they may be put into the following 
classes: 

1. Denial of the Incarnation of the Substance of God the 
Word in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and His birth out of her. 
To this head belong Classes A and C. 

2. Passages which teach service of some kind to the Man, that 
is to the creature taken by the Uncreated Word of God: as, for in- 
stance, Classes D, E, F and G. 

3. Passages which have a tendency to end in worshipping he 
creature, that is the J/az united to God the Word. Under this head 
betawe-@lasses A B.C, H, 1, J, K; and 1. 

4. Passages which corrupt the true doctrine of the Universal 
Church on the Eucharist, that is, the Thanksgiving. Under this. 
head belong not only Class K, but also Classes D, E, F, and G, 
which anticipatively prohibit all service done in the Eucharist to 
the humanity taken on by God the Word, by the unreformed Com- 
munions, the Greek, the Latin, and the Monophysite, and by 
the Nestorians also, for they worship the body and blood of Christ. 
in the Eucharist, and by the Pusey-Keble heresy of the same kina 
so far, and all other worship of the Man put on, whether that 
worship be given in the Eucharist or, according to Cyril above, 
anywhere else, (pages 79 and 225. Compare all of notes 183, 
582 and 606. Compare note 156, and pages 79-85, and 221-224). 

Cyril, in his reply to passage 18 of Nestorius’ Blasphemies, de- 
nies that the Divinity of God the Word is with or in the bread and 
wine at all on the Eucharistic table. See S. Cyrvilof Alexandria on 
the Incarnation against Nestorius, Oxford translation, pages 151, 160. 
On page 145, id., he speaks of it as ‘‘/folly’’ to believe that we 


532 Act. I. of, Liphesus. 


‘“consume the Divinity’’ of God the Word in the Eucharist. See 
also note 606, pages 250-260 above. Hence the Bishops of the 
Third Ecumenical Council in approving and in following their 
teacher, Cyril of Alexandria, condemned anticipatively the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation held to by the Romanists and the Greeks, and 
‘the doctrine of Consubstantiation held to by others, that we eat or 
consume the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist. Cyril 
shows on pages 260-276 above, note, that if we ate Christ’s real 
human flesh and drank his real human blood in the Eucharist we 
would be guilty of what he expressly terms Cannzbalism, that hence 
there is no real presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the 
Rite, nor is there a real presence of the substance of His humanity 
there; that instead He ‘‘ sends the power of life into the things which 
lie before us,’’ that is, into the leavened bread and wine ‘‘ and changes 
them to the ENERGY of His own flesh’ (see page 263 above, note), 
whose touch was quickening and life giving. Andso Christ’s energy 
is in the bread and wine now. He disowns ‘‘ canzzzbalism,’’ that is, 
eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Man put on. See 
St. Cyril’s Five Book Contradiétion, Oxford translation, page 142 
and the context, and R. Payne Smith’s English translation of S. Cyr7 
of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, Part 
2, pages 664-670. On page 668 of this last work, Cyril teaches that 
we have a ‘‘ relative participation’’ of God the Word in the Euchar- 
ist. Elsewhere he blames Nestorius for holding merely to a velative 
indwelling of God the Word in the Man in the Virgin’s womb and 
his denial of the actual indwelling of the Substance of God the Word 
inthat Man. See forinstance S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarna- 
tion against Nestorius, pages 282, 283, 345, 357, 160, 14, 35, 40; 41, 
67, 74, 79, 105, 215, 258, 276, 303, in which passages σχετίιχήν should 
be rendered ‘‘velative’’ and σχετιχῶς ‘‘ relatively.’’(a) Seealso pp. 47, 
73, and 248. ‘Those passages serve to explain his sense of ‘‘ velative 
participation ’’ here. He means that He enters us by his gvace in 
the Eucharistic eating and drinking, not by his human flesh and 
blood; by his grace in the Eucharistic body and blood, that is, by 
his grace using the bread and wine as channels to bless the worthy 
ἀν CMC OOP RIAN τόν ὑετὸν τα δ G MEN UNO NFS ει ον ΒΝ 

(a). When E. B. Pusey willed he could render σχετική rightly, See in 
proof page 54 of his “ Dottrine of the Real Presence,’ where he translates it 
‘‘elative’’ in a passage of Gerhard. 


Additional Notes. 533 


recipient (4). The Greek terms in the passages last referred to above 
are specified under σχέσει and σχετιχήν, page 405 in the Index of 
Greek Words in the Oxford translation of S. Cyvil of Alexandria on 
the Incarnation against Nestorius. 


Cyril again teaches on the Eucharist in his Commentary on St. 
John. See the Oxford translation of it, vol. 1. pages 361-454. But 
see fully in this volume above, note 606, pages 240-313. Compare 
note 599, page 229-238. And see the part of St. Cyril’s Ecumeni- 
cally approved Longer Epistle above on pages 232-241. 


5. Passages which corrupt the true doctrine of the Universal 
Church on God the Word as our Mediator and Great High Priest. 
Of this kind are classes I, J. 


At this point I ought to add that, as we know from Cyril of 
Alexandria, Ox the [ncarnation against Nestorius, Oxford translation, 
page 4, those extracts are taken from ‘‘homdlies’’ of Nestorius, 
which serves to explain the use of the terms ‘‘ blasphemous preach- 
ings’? (χηρύγματα) for them in the announcement to him of the Sen- 
tence of Deposition by the Third Ecumenical Synod against him for 
the dlasphemies and heresies of creature service and other errors in 
them. And the sentence refers to the fact that he ‘‘ preaches im- 
piously.’’ Pusey ina note, pages 48, 49, of his translation of Cyril 
against Nestorius has given some account of those sermons, and in- 
forms us that Marius Mercator has translated sermons of Nestorius 
which contain a number of the extracts which are quoted above in 
the First Act of the Third Ecumenical Synod. For details see that 
note and column 2 in the table below. 1 would add that much mat- 
ter may be found on all these topics in the notes on Cyril’s XII. 
Anathemas above where the alleged Counter Anathemas of Nes- 
torius are quoted (pages 313-413), and in those on the twenty 
heretical passages of Nestorius on pages 443-481 above. 


(ὁ). St. Cyrilin his /ive Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nes-~ 
torius, Book V., section I, writing on John xvii., 20-23, and telling how He is 
in us shows thatit is by His Spirit’s influences to sanctify, not by His Substance, 
I quote: 


“Ἢ 6 isin us both by His own flesh which quickens us by the Spirit, and by 
our partaking of His holiness, and it is clear that that also takes place by the 
Holy Spirit.’ See especially pages 250-260 above, on ‘‘ His own flesh.” 


534 


No. 


Where found 
zn Nestorius’ 
Sermons in 
Marius Merca- 
tor, tom. 48 of 
Migne’s Patro- 
logia Latina. 


In Sermon 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Errors taught by Nestorius tn it. 


(A). Denial of the Incarnation of 


second, col. 765: God the Word in the Virgin and His 


compare No. 2 
ex libro 2, col. 


903. 


In Sermon 
Fifth, Section 8; 
in column 787. 
Compare col- 
umn 903, No. 2, 
“ex libroa.’? A 
part of it is 
found in col. 
906: it is from az 
Epistle of St. 
Cyril of Alex- 
andria to Aca- 


birth out of her; which is condemned 
in Cyril’s Anathema I.; compare the 
Fifth Synod’s Anathemas II. and IV. 


(B). Denial of the doctrine that the 


Where refuted 
by Cyril, 


This whole 
passage is quot- 
ed by Cyril in 
his Five Look 
Contradi δ 1 Ο 11 
of the Blas- 


human things (τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, humana) | phemtes of Nes- 


of the Man taken by the Word are to be 
ascribed Economically to God theWord 
This is condemned in Cyril’s Anathema 
XII. Compare his Anathema IV. 


(C). Asserting the relative sonship 
of the humanity taken by God the 
Word, so that, according to Nestorius, 
it is velatively Son of God, that is be- 
cause of God the Word. This error is 
connected with another error, namely 
the relative worship of the Man united 
to God the Word and is one of its sup- 
ports. This is Adoptionism, and is 
condemned by Cyril’s Anathemas IL., 
III., IV. and VIII., approved by the 
Third Council, and by Anathemas IV., 
νι VIE ESS en eee 
XIV., of the Fifth Synod. 


(A). Denial of the Incarnation of 
the divine Substance of God the Word 
in the womb of the Virgin, and His 
birth out of her. His words imply 
that he did not admit her to be the 
Bringer Forth of God (Θεοτόκος). 


(A). Calling Cyril, or whatsoever 
Orthodox man opposed his errors, a 
“ heretic,’ for that reason, which of 
course is tantamount to branding the 
faith afterward approved by the whole 
Church in the Third Ecumenical 


ciusof Melitene.\ Synod as heresy. 


torius, BookIL., 
section I, pages 
48, 49, in the 
Oxford transla- 
tion. See it re- 
futed there and 
elsewhere in 
Cyril. 


All this pass- 
age is quoted by 
Cyrilinhis Five 
Book Contradtc- 
tion of the Blas- 
phemties of Nes- 
torius, Book J., 
section I, pages 
10 andirr of 
Pusey’s Oxford 
translation. It 
is refuted in the 
context and 


Additional Notes. 


535 


— SSS 


No. 


4. 


Where foumd 
in Mar. Merc. 


In Sermon 
Fifth, section 9, 
col. 787; a part 
of it is found 
also in an Epts- 
tle of Cyril of 
Alexandria to 
Acacius of Mel- 
ztené, quoted in 


col. 906. 


In Sermon 


Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 


These errors are condemned in 
Cyril’s Ephesus-approved Anathemas 
I., etc., and by Anathemas ΕΠ, III., 
etc., of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. 


(A). Denial of the Incarnation of 
the divine Substance of God the Word 
in the womb of the Virgin, and His 
birth out of her. 


These denials are cursed in Anathe- 
mas I., etc., of Cyril approved by the 
Third Ecumenical Synod, and by 
Anathemas II., III., etc., of the Fifth. 


(H). Nestorius divides the names of 
the Son between His Divinity and His 
humanity, contrary to Cyril’s Anathe- 
malIV., instead of giving them all to 
God the Word in accordance with the 
do¢trine of Economic Appropriation; 
for which he is therefore condemned 
by Cyril’s Anathema XII., and it is 
plain that he divides the Two Natures 
also by denying the Incarnation, 
which dividing is condemned by 
Cyril’s Anathema III. Such anti- 
Incarnation dividing is condemned by 
several Canons of the Fifth Synod. 


(A). Denial of the Incarnation of 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 
elsewhere by 
Cyril. 


Cyril’s Five 
Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blas- 
phemtes of Nes- 
torius, Book TI., 
section I, (page 
11 of the Oxford 
translation), 
contains all this 
quotation to 
“and weall con- 
fess.”’ It is re- 
futed in the con- 
text. 


The rest Yor 
this quotation is 
referred to by 
Cyrilin tite 
same place and 
elsewhere. But 
theOxfordtrans- 
lation has two 
very bad mis- 
takes on page 
11, for, I, it uses 
“Mother of 
God’’ continu- 
ally where the 
Greek is 
“Bringer Forth 
of God,” and 

2, it has ‘‘God- 
bearing man’? 
wrongly for 
ἐς 2, Sp Ur ee 
man.’’ 

This passage 


Third, column | the divine Substance of God the Word | from “ ¢hey /fol- 
in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and | lowed the Evan- 
His birth out of her; and twisting the | gedist’”’ to “hear 


771: 


536 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


LVo. 


5. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


In Sermon 
Second; column 
766. 


Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 


Creed ofthe First Synod, or that of the 
Second, or both, to his own heretical 
sense and B. and H. distributing the 
names of the Son between His Two 
Natures, instead of ascribing them all 
to the Logos. 


These heresies are condemned in 
Anathenias 1: ids, EV.) ΘΠ ΕΙΣ ΘΝ 
Cyril approved by the Third Ecumeni- 
cal Council, and by Anathemas IL., 
LITT ΝΗ, ΕΣ ΘΈΜΕΠΕ 
Fifth. 


‘The Fathers ’’ on whom Nestorius 
here relies seem to be the Fathers of 
the Nestorian heresy, Diodore of Tar- 
sus of the Fourth century, and Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia of the Fourth and 
Fifth. These men misled the Syrians. 
Cyril therefore condemned and wrote 
against both. Theodore is condemned 
in Anathemas IV., ΚΠ. -XJIL, and 
XIV., of the Fifth Synod, and in its 
Definition. 


(D). That form of Man-Service, 
that is of Creature-Service, which con- 
sists in applying the term God to the 
Man taken by God the Word, on ac- 
count of his relation to the Word by 
a ‘‘mere external conjoinment.’’ This 
is a form of the old pagan erros of ve- 
lative worship, which was also one 
form of ¢hé sin of the Israelites in wor- 
shipping the golden calf in the wilder- 
ness and the calves at Dan and Bethel; 
for they called those things ‘‘God”’ or 
“Gods.’’? And that the applying of-the 
peculiar name of God to a man is an 
act of religious worship Nestorius 
himself in effect confesses in the last 
words of this passage 5. For he in 
effect put forth the plea of velatire 
service of the creature conjoined, to use 
his own term, to God the Word, ‘‘zz 
order that no one may suspect Christi- 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 
what sort of 
words he utters, 
The Word be- 
came flesh,’’ in- 
clusive are quot- 
ed by Cyril in 
his Five Book 
Contradiétion of 
the Blasphemies 
of Nestorius, 
Book I., seétion 
7, pages 30 and 
31 in the Oxford 
translation. He 
refers to the im- 
portant ideas in 
the rest, and re- 
futes the whole 
in the context, 
and elsewhere. 


Part of this is 
quoted by Cyril 
in section 13 of 
Book II., of his 
Five Book Con- 
tradictiion 
of the Blas- 
phemtes of Nes- 
torius. See it as 
there quoted in 


the’ Osten a 
translation, page 
80, νη τὲ": 


futes its Man- 
Service in his 
Scholia on the 
Incarnation, 
(pages 210, 211 
of the Oxford 
translation): in 
his Christis One 


Vo. 


6. 


Where found 
in Mar. Merc. 


In Sermon 
Second, col. 764, 
765. Compare 
column 904, no. 
4 ex libro 2. 


Additional Notes. 


Errors taught by Nestorius in tt. 


antty of serving a Man,’ which im- 
plies that if his plea of, in effect, ve- 
lative service, is not valid, Nestorian 
so-called ‘‘ Christianity’’ may justly 
be suspected ‘‘of serving a Man.”’ 
And Cyril and the whole Church at 
Ephesus in 431 and at II. Constanti- 
nople in 553, defined in the matter of 
these quotations from Nestorius and 
in the matter of the Creed mentioned 
by Charisius which teaches the same 
relative service to the man taken by 
God the Word, because of God the 
Word’s velation to him, that such ve- 
lative worship is wrong. And the 
Bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod 
ascribed the authorship of that Creed 
to ““SATAN.”? See on that Act VI. of 
the Council. See alsothe condemna- 
tion of the errorof applying the term 
God to the Man put on,and of worship- 
ping him in Cyril’s Anathema VIIL., 
pages 331,332 above,and Anathema IX. 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod and its 
Definition. Besides, (B) Nestorius, in 
accordance with his Anti-Incarnation 
dividing of Christ’s Two Natures, 
divides His names also between them 
contrary to Cyril’s Anathemas IIL., 
and IV., and to the doctrine of Econo- 
mic Appropriation in Cyril’s Anathe- 
ma XII. 


(Ὁ). That form of Man-Service, 
that is, of Cveature-Service, which 
consists iz applying to the Man taken 
by God the Word, the names of God, 
on account of his ve/ation to God the 
Word by what Nestorius terms ‘“‘ con- 
joinment.’? On this sin see the state- 
ment and explanation above in this 
column under passage 5. The error 
is the same as there. 


Besides Nestorius divides the names 
of the Son between His Two Natures; 


537 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 
(pages 271-283 
of the Oxford 
translation, and 
page 302). Theo- 
dore of Mopsu- 
estia, Nestorius’ 
Master, had used 
the same text 
(Rom. ix.,5) ina 
heretical sense, 
which Cyril re- 
futesin his writ- 
ings against 
Theodore; (see 
page 360 in the 
Oxford transla- 
tion). Busey, 
id.,page 80,note 
“*f,’’ states that 
Cyril quotes 
““the last por- 
ton” of" t hve 
above as given 
on his page 80 
‘in his letter to 
Acacius of Mel- 
ὙΠΟ. Epp. p. 


PLS, 0.° 


This passage 
is quoted in 
nearly the same 
form by Cyril 
in section 3 of 
the SecondBook 
of his Five Book 
Contradiction of 
the Blasphemtes 
of Nestorius. It 
is found on page 
54 of the Oxford 


538 


No. 


vi 


Act l, of Ephesus. 


Where found| Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 


in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


In Sermon 
Seventh, section 
12; col. 793, 794. 
Cyril of Alexan- 
dria quotes it in 
his Answer to 
the objections of 
the Orientals to 
his XII. Chap- 
ters, under Ana- 
thema III. See 
tome 48 of 
Migne’s Fatro- 
logia Latina, 
col. 905, where 
this fact is stat- 
ed. 

I do not find 
this passage 


whereas Cyril gives them all to God 
the Word only, those which mean 
God, as for instance, God, Logos, as 
belonging to God the Word alone, of 
natural right, and those which refer to 
His humanity such as Wan, Anointed, 
by Economic Appropriation. 


The sin of applying the term God to 
a creature, that is, to Christ’s human- 
ity, is condemned by St. Cyril’s Ana- 
thema VIII.; and the error of dividing 
the Natures, and the names of the Son 
betweeu them, is anathematized by 
Cyril’s Anathemas III., IV., etc., and 
in Anathemas III., IV., V., VI. and 
VII., of the Fifth Synod. Of course 
whenever the Two Natures are separ- 
ated in these heretical Passages of 
Nestorius, his Christ is left a mere 
human being and all worship of him 
is therefore mere M/an-worship, that 
is mere creature-worship. See Cyril’s 
Anathema VIII., and Anathema IX., 
of the Fifth Council. 


(D). The same error asin the last 
two passages above. It is condemned 
by Cyril’s Anathema VIII. 

(H). Dividing the one Christ into 
the Nestorians’ Duality which is con- 
nected with their Man-Service and is 
a part of its basis. This is condemned 
in ‘Cyril’s* Anathemias ILL 1V.{ v.- 
VI., and VII. of the Fifth Ecumen- 
ical Synod. 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


translation of S. 
Cyril of Alex- 
andria on the 
Incarnation 
against Nestor- 
ius. Itis refut- 
ed in the con- 
text and else- 
where by Cyril. 
Compare Cyril’s 
Scholia on the 
Incarnation, 
page 185 in the 
same Oxford 
translation. 


I have not 
found exactly 
the same words 
in Cyril’s Five 
Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blas- 
phemtes of Nes- 
torius, but they 
are logically 
connected with 
the next passage 
which is found: 
and Nestorius’ 
perversion of 
Philip: iz, 5; G; 
7, here is ably 
refuted with his 
Man-Worship 
by Cyrilin the 


No. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin, 
among Cyril’s 
quotations from 
Nestorius in his 
Five Book Con- 
tradiétion of the 
Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, as 
mentioned in 
col. 903-906, in 
tome 48 as a- 
bove. 


In Sermon 
Seventh in a de- 
fective form, in 
sections 35 and 
26> “col. '798; 
tom. 48 as a- 
bove; and in 
Sermon 2, in 
Baluze’s edition 
as in tom. 8, of 
Galland. #z26/1- 
Oth. Vet. ΤΏ, 
page 632. 

But it is given 
almost exactly 
in Sermon I, 
sections 9 andio, 
col. 762 in said 
tome 48 and in 
Baluze’s edition 
as given in Gal- 
land. Bibliothe- 
ca Vets Patr., 
tom. 8, page 


Additional Notes. 


Errors taught by Nestorius 171 it. 


(E). The Nestorian mere Relative 
Union of Christ’s Two Natures; and 
the Nestorian Relative worship by 
bowing to the Man ‘“‘conjoined’’ to 
God the Word, for the sake of Ged 
the Word and on account of God the 
Word. This form of relative service 
was the siu of the Israelites in wor- 
shipping Jehovah through the golden 
calf in the wilderness and the calves 
at Bethel and Dan; and the velative 
service of images painted, that is, pic- 
tures (Ezek. viii., I-13, compare xxiil., 
14), images graven, relics, and other 
things among the heathen is defended 
by them on the ground that the wor- 
ship of any kind and of every kind so 
given goes to the prototype represented 
by it or to whom it is related. 


A lower and baser kind of this Nes- 
torian sin of worshipping Christ’s 
mere separate humanity, that is, a 
mere creature, exists to-day among all 


the unreformed Greeks, Latins, and | 


539 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


passages re- 
ferred to under 
chapter ii. of 
Philippians in 
the: ““fudex ‘of 
Texts,” “pages 
398, 399 of the 
Oxford transla_ 
tion of S. Cyril 
of Alexandria, 
on the Incarna- 
tion against 
Nestorius. 
Those  pass- 
ages should all 
be read by every 
cleric) (and. 1η- 
deed by every 
laic of learning. 


A part of this, 
that is the words 
which express 
the poison of 
Man-Service, “I 
worship him 
who 15 worn for 
the sake of Him 
Who wears: I 
bow to him who 
75 seen for the 
sake of Flim 
Whots hidden,’’ 
is quoted by 
Cyrilin section 
11, of Book 2 of 
his Five Book 
Contradiction 
of the SLlas- 
phemtes of Nes- 
torius, page 75 
of the Oxford 
translation of |S. 
Cyril of Alex- 


040 


Act I, of Ephesus. 


No. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


6322. In bot 
these last named 
places, however, 
t he quotation 
from Philip. 11., 
10, is not found. 
But in column 
798 of tom. 48 
of) Malgme *s 
Fatrol. Latina, 
and on page 632 
of tom. 8, of 
Galland. Azdbli- 
otheca Veterum 
Patrum, that 
text is found, 
and it is there 
preceded by the 
creature serving 
expression used 
of Christ’s hu- 
manity, ‘‘Adoro 
tamquam omni- 
potentis imagi- 
nem Deitatis.’’ 
Then without 
ΠΥ Ot © adc 
Philip. (ai, τῷ 
follows. 

But in these 
two editions of 
Marius Merca- 
tor, Nestorius’ 
Sermons are 
numbered  dif- 
ferently. 


The whole 
passage Philip. 
ii., Io and allis 
given together 
11. col.,)900) ‘of 
tO SAS) Ot 
Migne’s fatro- 


eee 


ee 
a ---.-᾽-᾽--᾽ἘἘ- - Ἐ-“ς-ςςς-ς-ὀο.ο.ςςςο-ς-- 


Errors taught by Nestorius in 11. 


Monophysites, in giving acts of reli- 
gious service to angels, saints, the 
Virgin Mary, painted images, (among 
the Latins graven images also), relics, 
communion tables or altars, and other 
things. The Nestorians are guilty of 
all forms of this sin, except worship- 
ping images. Singularly enough, 
though the first to fall intothe sin of 
kelative Service they have not de- 
scended so low into it in some respects 
as the once sound Church which ex- 
communicated them at Ephesus, A. 
D. 431, for it. Icall the velatzve ser- 
vice of such created persons and things 
lower and baser than the Nestorian 
relative service of Christ’s humanity 
because such persons and things are 
lower than Christ’s humanity which 
is the highest and best of all created 
things. Andif I may not worship that 
by bowing, or, (by necessary implica- 
tion), by any other act, much less may 
I worship by any act of religious 
service any other creature, or any 
thing. The Third Synod and the Fifth 
in so deciding acted in loyal con- 
sonace with Christ’s unchangeable 
and soul-saving law couched in the 
words, Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy 
God, and H1M ONLY Shalt thou serve,”’ 
Matt. iv., 10, and Lukeiv., 8. Cyril 
andthe Third Synod by their action 
on this passage teach that we should 
not worship the Man as did Nestorius, 
but God the Word. To Him as the 
infinitely superior Nature should all 
our worship be directed. We should 
not direct it to Uis wrapping, the 
creature. 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


andria on the 
Incarnation 
against Nestor- 
7us, and the rest 
of it is referred 
to in the con- 
text where it is 
all nobly and 
ably refuted b y 
Cyril. Indeed, 
his writings are 
full of condem- 
nation of that 
relative service 
and Man-Ser- 
UL Ce. Cry 
quotes the words 
above quoted, 
‘LD Worse ape 
etc., and con- 
demns them in 
his Synodal 
Epistle to Nes- 
torius which 
has the Twelve 
Chapters and 
which was a p- 
yroved in the 
Third Ecumeni- 
cal Synod and 
in the three 
Ecumenical 
Synods follow- 
ing, and hence 
his opposition 
to them was 
there approved 
also. 


The applying 
the name 
‘‘God’’ to the 
man put on is 
condemned in 


Additional Notes. 


541 


No. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 
logia Latina, 
and is there im- 
mediately pre- 
ceded by the 
words, ‘Colo, 
tnguit [Nestor- 
ius], eum [the 
man united to 
God the Word] 
tamquam omni- 
potentis imagi- 
nem,’ which 
shows his JZan- 
service. See 
part of this pass- 
age in id., col. 
906, in ax Epzs- 
tle of Cyril of 
Alexandria to 
Acacius of Mel- 
ztene. 


In Sermon 


Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 


(F). Putting the creature, that is the 


Second, col. 765. | Man ‘‘conjoined’’ to God the Word, 


Compare No. 8, 
col. 904. 


on the same level of divine dignity as 
the Uncreated Word of God, which is 
a form of Man-Service, that is of Crea- 
ture-Service, because it 1s an ascribing 
of the dignity peculiar and prerogative 
to GOD THE WORD /0 a Creature. All 
such creature-worship is condemned 
by Anathema VIII. of Cyril and by 
Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumeni- 
cal Synod. And the error of a relative 
mere external conjunétion, and real 
separation of Christ’s Two Natures, 
which is a basis of that Wan- Worship, 
is condemned and cursed by Cyril’s 
Anathema III. See the difference 
between the Orthodox Substance 
Union and Nestorius’ heretical ve- 
lative Union explained in note 156 
above. 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


the same place 
in that Epistle 
and is hence 
condemned by 
the Third Synod 
also. These 
places are on 
pages 221-224 
above. 


This passage 
is quoted by 
Cyril in section 
7 of Book 2 of 
his Five Book 
Contradiétion of 
the Blasphemties 
of Nestorius, 
and is found on 
pages 63 and 64 
of the Oxford 
translation, and 
is refuted by 
Cyril in: t hve 
context and 
elsewhere. 


042 


Ace 7. of Epnesus. 


No. 


Io. 


II. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


In Sermon 2 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin 
translation; (col. 
766, in tom. 48 
of Migne’s Fat- 
rologia Latina. 
A part of the 
same language 
of Nestorius is 
found under 
Anathema VIII. 
in Cyril of Alex- 
andria’s Answer 
to theObjeétions 
of the Orientals 
DOM Se NGL: 
Chapters, as is 
noted in col.go6, 
tome 48 of 
Migne’s fatro- 
logia Latina. 


It is given in 
col. 898, tom. 
48 of Migne’s 
Pat raloagivia 
Latina. It is 
there ascribed 
to the “‘Aighth 
Quaternion,”’ 
but the number 
of the sermon is 
not specified. 
But it is found 
in Sermon 6, 
section 5 in col. 
788, tom. 48, id. 


Errors taught by Nestorius tn tt. 


(ΕἸ. The Nestorian sin of serving 
the mere Man taken by God the Word 
relatively by bowing, etc., because, 
that is, of God the Word and for the 
sake of God the Word. This is the 
same as the sin mentioned in passage 
8, in this column above, which see for 
fuller information. 


This error is condemned by Anathe- 
ma VIII., of Cyril which is approved 
by the Third World-Council, and by 
Anathema IX. ‘of the’ Fifth” (ts 
connected logically with the denial of 
the Incarnation which is condemned 
in Anathema I., and with Relative 
Union is condemned in Anathemas II. 
and III., and with the rest of Nestor- 
ius’ errors which are condemned in 
the rest of St. Cyril’s Anathemas. 


(I} Denying that God the Word is 
our High Priest, and asserting that a 
mere Man ‘‘conjoined’’ to Him is. 
This error has a tendency to bring in 
bowing to the Man put on and invoca- 
tion of him, for we are taught in Holy 
Writ to go to our High Priest for help. 
Heb. 11 9=18;/4ii.,0; iv:, 14-165 vi., 20° 
Vil, 2. 28; (Vill. 1 ix: 27: ἘΠ ΠΊΟ 2]. 
John: xtv.,/6,°13; τὴ: ν᾿ 6. and xvi 
23, 24, 26. And if we forget the due 
pre-eminence and infinitely superior 
Nature of God the Word in Him we 
may be led to serve the creature con- 
trary to the Creatorby going to a man 
by bowing, invocation, or by some 
other act of MWan-service, that is, of 
Creature-Service, Rom. i., 25; Matt. 
iv., Io, and Luke iv., 8. 


his heresy is condemned by Ana- 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


This passage 
is quoted by 
Cyrilin section 
13 of Book 2, of 
his Five Book 
Contradiction 
of the Bigs. 
phemtes of Nes- 
tortus, and is 
found on page 
89 of the Oxford 
English transla- 
tion, and is re- 
futed in the con- 
text and passim 
by Cyril. As to 
a slight vari- 
ation in the 
reading of the 
last passage see 
note “‘g,” page 
80; Oxford 
translation. 


This is quoted 
by Cyril in sec- 
tion 1 of Book 3 
of Aw sie we 
Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blas- 
phemties of Nes- 
torius, and is 
found on pages 
ΟΙ; 92 of the 
Oxford transla- 
tion. It is re- 
futed in the con- 
text there and 
passim by Cyril. 


Additional Notes. 


543 


No. 


12. 


13. 


14. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


Errors taught by Nestorius tn it. 


thema X. of Cyril which is approved 
by the Third Synod of the Christian 
World. 


(H). Like part of Passage 7 in this 
column above, it dividesthe One Christ 
into the Nestorian Duality which is 
connected with their Man-service. 


This is given 
by Marius Mer- 
cator as from 
Quaternion 
Rooke spit the 
number of the 
Sermon to 
which it belongs 
is not specified. 
It is found in 
col. go2, tome 
48 of Migne’s 
Patrologia La- 
tna. 


This error is condemned by Cyril’s 
Anathemas III. and IV., and by Ana- 


the Fifth Synod. We must remember 
also that Nestorius by the words ‘‘7he 
same one was * * * a dweller in 
the infant,’ did not mean that God 
the Word indwelt the infant by His 
Holy Spirit. See also note 959 above. 
It is found in 
Sermon II, Sec- 
tion 3, (col. 830, 
tome 48 of 
Migne’s Fatro- 
logia Latina). 
(6). Ascribing ‘‘the good glory”? 
of God the Word Who is the Sole-born 
out of the Father to a creature, that is, 
to the Man taken by Him. Thisisa 


In Sermon ΤΟ, 
(col. 829, 830, 
tome 48, of 
Migne’s Fatro- 
logia Latina, in 
Marius Mercat- 
or’s translation. 
Compare col. 
904, No.7. The 
arrangement of 
these Sermons 
and their num- 


Creature-Service. See this feature ex- 
plained in a note on this passage 
above. Thisis akin to the sin men- 
tioned in Passages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, above; 
in that it isa form of velative creature- 
service. See under those passages ir 
this column above. 


bering leaves| This heresy iscondemned by Cyril’s 
much to be de-| Anathema VIII. and by Anathema IX. 
sired yet of|ofthe Fifth Synod. 


order in them). 


In Sermon 7, 
Sections 23, 24, 
37 and 38 (col- 


(E) and (D). Two passages and two 
forms of Man-Service are included 
under this quotation. (ΕἾ, The first is 


themas ΠῚ ΤΥ V., Vi. and ΠῚ ΟἹ 


Eternal Substance but only by His 


kind of Man-Service, and hence of 


Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


I have not 
found it ta 
Cyril, but the 
error in it is re- 
futed by him 
passin. The 
Sixth of Cyril’s 
XII. Anathemas 
is levelled a- 
gainst it. 


This is quoted 
by Cyril in Sec- 
tion 7 of Book 
2 of the five 
Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blas- 
phemies of Nes- 
torius-it is found 
on page 61 of 
the Oxford 
translation, and 
is refuted by 
Cyril in the con- 
text and else- 
where. 


Both these 
passages are 
found in Cyril’s. 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


umns 797, 798, 
in tome 48 of 
Migne’s /atro- 
logia Latina in 
Marius Merca- 
tor’sLatin trans- 
lation. Com- 
pare No. 12 in 
col. g04,id. A 
part of these 
words is found 
in col. goo, id.) 


Errors taught by Nestorius in tt. 


bowing to the Man ‘‘conjoined’’ to 
God the Word ‘‘together with the 
Divinity”? of God the Word, on the 
ground that that Man is ‘‘ co-worker 
with the divine authority.’ This 
worship is addressed ¢o both Natures, 
absolutely to the Divinity of the Word, 
relatively to the Man ‘‘conjoined.’’ 
This relative worship of that mere 
Man is the sin of Wan-Service, that is, 
Creature-Service by bowing set forth 
in Passages H and J above; which see. 

(D). The second passage teaches 
the sin of applying the name of God 
to a creature, which is a form of crea- 
ture-service, like that set forth in 
passages 5, 6and 7 above. It is vela- 
tive like the application of the name 
God to images by many idolatrous so- 
called Christians in our time, and their 
relative worship of them is done on 
the pagan and Nestorian principle of 
relative worship. 

Aye, even worse, a Romish Arch- 
bishop, Kenrick of Baltimore, con- 
tends that ‘‘Chris?’s human Nature ts 
to be adored with the divine Word 
withoneand the same supreme wor- 
ship of latria,’’ that is, that Christ’s 
humanity, a mere creature, is to re- 
ceive the same absolute worship as 
God the Word Himself!!! So he 
teaches on pages 258-262, vol. 2 of his 
Theol. Dogm. Surely if the Nestorian 
worship of Christ’s humanity is blas- 
phemous, though it is only relative, 
Kenrick’s absolute worship of that 
creature is more so. 

Those errors are condemned in 
Cyril’s Anathema VIII., which was 
approved by Ephesus and the Three 


Synods of the Christian World after it, 
and by Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council and in its Definition. 


Where refuted 
by Cyril, 


Five Book Con- 
tradtction of the 
Blasphemies of 
Nestorius: the 
first in Book 2, 
section 9, and 
the second in 
Book 2, section 
12: they are on 
pages 69 and 77 
of the Oxford 
translation, and 
they are refuted 
with their crea- 
ture-service by 
St. Cyril in the 
context there. 


Vo. 


15. 


16. 


Where found 


in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


In Sermon 
Third, (col. 767, 
768, tome 48 of 
Migne’s fatro- 
logia Latina). 


In Sermon 
VI., Sections 7 
and 8. (See it, 
in col. 788, 789, 
tome 48, in 
Migne’s Fatro- 
logia Latina, 
but with some 
difference in 
places, though 
in the main the 
same. Compare 


Additional Notes. 


Errors taught by Nestorius in tt. 


On the Relative Worship of the 
Arians and Socinians, see under Re/a- 
tive Worship in the General Index 
in this volume and in volume 1 of 
Nicaea in this Set. 


(Gand D and 6). The attributing 
of co-session with God the Father to a 
creature, thatis, tothe Wan externally 
‘conjoined’ to God the Word, ac- 
cording to Nestorius. 


(D), and making God the Spirit to 
co-celebrate the glory of that creature 
with God the Word, to Whom alone, 
according to the Church doé¢trine, all 
the glory of both Natures in the Son 
belongs. 

(D). The giving the title Zovd in 
the sense of God toa creature, that is, 
to Christ’s mere humanity. 


These forms of MWan-Service are 


similar to those mentioned in Passages | mentioned, 


545 
Where refuted 
by Cyril. 


These words 
from ‘‘ God the 
Word” to the 
end _ inclusive 
are quoted by 
Cyril in section 
I, Book 4, in his 
Five Book Con- 
tradittion of the 
Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, and 
the rest of them 
are.) in | sub- 
tance, referred 
to there. They 
are, above 
on 


as 


9 and 13 above, where see for fuller | Page 127 of the 


information. 


They are condemned in Anathema 
VIII. of Cyril of Alexandria which 
was approved by Ephesus, and in Ana- 
thema IX. of the Fifth World Synod, 
and in its Definition. 


(I). Making a creature, that is, the 
Man externally ‘‘conjoined’’ to God 
the Word our High Priest, instead of 
God the Word; and calling Cyril or 
whatsoever Orthodox Man he is op- 
posing a ‘‘heretic’’ for maintaining 
the sound doé¢trine, which is in effect 
to apply the term heresy to the Anti- 
Man-Serving doctrine of the Universal 
Church since set forth by it in its 
Third Council and in its Fifth. How 
Nestorius’ heresy on this point favors 


id., col.go4, No. | a tendency to Man-service is told un- 


Oxford transla- 
tion. Cyril re- 
futes them in 
the context. 


Nearly all this 
passage, or rath- 
er nearly all of 
both these pass- 
ages, is quoted 
by St. Cyril in 
Section 3, Book 
3 of his five 
Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blas- 
phemies of Nes- 
torius, and the 
rest of it is in 


Where found 
izz Alarius Mer- 
| cator’s Latin. 


4, ex libro Tir. 
The passage as- 
cribed to John 
in the text of 
Coletti: in) this 
passage, and in 
the margin 
there to Luke is 
here ascribed to 
Luke: inthe 
text. I is 
really found in 
uke Avis 152. 
V/ORT. 15. Ῥτο- 
bably therefore 
a copyist’s error 
TORN, wee”). 


The first part 
of it, except the 
text from Heb. 
ili., 1, 2, is found 
in Sermon VI. 
(col. 789, tom. 
48 of Migne’s 
Fatrologia La- 
tina. The rest 
of it I have not 
found. The 
part lacking be- 
gins in Latin, 
““Sed adverte, 
cum omnem 
pontificem sac- 
rificio egere fa- 
teatur.’’ There 
is however a 
slight difference 
between the La- 
tin given by 
Migne and that 
in Coleti here. 


Act 7. of Ephesus. 


Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 


| Where refuted 
| by Cyrel. . 


der Passage 11 above which contains | substance refer- 


the same error; where see. ‘This error 
is condemned by Cyril’s Anathema X. 

Nestorius in effect here asserts that 
Christ’s humanity was imperfect at 
first, but that he improved, that is, 
progressed little by little. 

That blasphemy is cursed by Ana- 
thema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council. Cyril in his Five Book Con- 
tradiction of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
torius. Oxford translation, makes 
Christ’s humanity perfect: see id., 
pages 194, 242, 262, 263 and 336. 


(I, J). This contains two errors, 
first, the denying God the Word to be 
our High Priest and putting a Man in- 
to His place and so leading to Wan-Ser- 
vice that is, to worshippinga Man. (On 
this sin see under Passage 11 above in 
this column). 

And secondly, the assertion that the 
Son made an offering for himself, 
which is absurd, and misleading, for 
he who knew no sin (11. Cor. v. 21) 
needed no offering, as Cyril well states 
in his Anathema X. 

Both errors are condemned and 
those who maintain either of them in 
St. Cyril’s Anathema X. which was 
approved by Ephesus. 


ithe Oxford 


red) to; 11 [πὸ 
context, where 
these errors are 
refuted also. So, 
much of it is 
found on pages 
Iog and 110 of 


translation, and. 
the refutation is. 


in the context. 
Compare id., 
page 86. 


Part of this 15 
quoted by Cyril 
in Section 4, 
Book 3 of his 
Five Book Con- 
tradtétion of the 
Blasphemies of 
Nesiontus 
where it is refut- 
ed. Compare 
Sections 5, 6and 
7. He explains 
Heb... τ τ Ὁ 
again in Sec- 
tion 27 Οἵ fis 
Scholia on the 
Incarnation 
and in his Christ 

\2s One. See all 
‘those places in 
‘the Oxford. 
translation, 
|pages 117, 216, 
283. Compare- 
pages 84, 85, 


᾿ and the context... 


Additional Notes. 


547 


No. 


18. 


19. 


Where found 
in Marius Mer- 
cator’s Latin. 


InSermon 
IX., but with 
some difference 
of meaning ina 
ἴεν piae es; 
though in most 
places the sense 
is the same. 
(See it in col- 
umns 828 and 
829 of tome 48 
of Migne’s Fat- 
rologiaLatina). 


In Sermon 
VII., the first 
and longer 
part in Section 
40, the shorter 
in Section 42. 
See the first 
part in col. 798 
of tome 48 of 
Migne’s fatro- 
logia Latina, 
and the second 
in col. 799, id. 


Errors taught by Nestorius tn it. 


(K). Asserting that in the Euchar- 
ist we eat the flesh and drink the blood 
of Christ’s humanity, which as Cyril 
states in reply is Cannibalism. And 
to father such a disgusting heresy on 
Christianity is an insult of a most 
grievous character, and is a most vile 
perversion and degradation of Christ’s 
holy and spiritual Sacrament. 


This heresy is condemned in Cyril’s 
Anathema XI. which is approved by 
the Third Ecumenical Synod. 


(B). Denying that the sufferings 
and death of the Man taken by God 
the Word are to be ascribed Econo- 
mically to God the Word. 

And (B and H), parting the names 
of the Son between His Two Natures 
instead of ascribing them all to God 
the Word. 

The object of Cyril and the Church 
in ascribing Economically all the hu- 
man things of the Man put on, and 
the names which specially refer to 
that Man to God the Word is as Atha- 
nasius and Cyrilexplain on pages 237- 
240 of vol. 1 of Vicaea in this Set, 
to avoid Man-Service, that is, worship 
to the Man put on, and to teach man- 
kind to look to what Cyril on pp. 79 
and 225 above makes to be the only 
object of religious service in the Son, 
that is, God the Word alone; and so to 


Where refuled 
by Cyril. } 

Most of this 
passage is quot- 
ed by Cyril in 
Section 3. of 
Book 4 of his 
Five Book Con- 
tradiétion of the 
Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, and 
is refuted in the 
context there. 
See it inthe Ox- 
ford translation, 
pages 140, 141 
and 142. Com- 
pare the pass- 
ages from Nes- 
torius on the 
Eucharist on 
pages 144, 145, 
148, 149, 150, 
151, 153, 154. 


I do not find 
exactly these 
words in Cyril 
of Alexandria’s 
Five Book Con- 
tradition af the 
Blasphemies of 
Nestorius, but 
Book V. of it 
has quotations 
from Nestorius 
of similar tenor. 
See pages 158, 
159, 164, 165, 
167} 163) 7365. 
171, 172, 173, 
174, 178, -179; 
180, 181: | 182; 
in the Oxford 
travistatio n: 
where and inthe 


548 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Where found | Errors taught by Nestorius in tt. Where refuted 


in Marius Mer-: 


cator’s Latin, 


I have not 
ΕΟ ΠῚ 1 1 
would say, judg- 
ing from the 
difference of ar- 
rangement of 
the matter of 
these sermons 
between Gallan- 
dus in tome 8, 
Biblioth. V et. 
Patr. and Migne 
in tome 48 of 
his Fatrologia 
Latina, that it 
looks as though 
at some time 
they had _ be- 
Ἰ come somewhat 
mixed, and that 
in places there 
seem to be omis- 
sions in one or 
the other, or 
both. 


obey Christ’s law: ‘‘Zhou shalt bow 
to the Lord thy God, and Him only 
shalt thou serve,’’ Matt. iv., το, and 
Luke iv., 8; and soto avoid the error 
of worshipping the creature contrary 
to [or, ‘‘ besides’’] the Creator (Rom. 
i., 25) for which God cursed the heath- 
en, and creature-serving Israel also. 


The first named error is condemned 
in Cyril’s Anathema XII. and the Sec- 
ond in his Anathema IV. 


(K). Asserting in effect, that all 
Christian teachers who do not hold 
his Incarnation-denying, Man-Serving, 
Cannibalistic, and other heresies are 
at fault, and that the Christian laity 
who do not hold said heresies of this 
Man-Server (avipwroratpyc) ‘lack * 
* * godly knowledge on the dog- 
ma!!!’ Surely this assertion is suffi- 
ciently brazen faced and perverse. 
And he is so modest as to speak of his 
own paganized notions defended by 
those who are rightly branded in 
Canons of the Third Synod as those 
of ‘‘the Apostasy,” as ‘‘the more ac- 
curate opinions!!!’ And in saying 
that Cyril and the other Orthodox 
teachers had ‘‘no fitting time’’ to 
learn and teach his paganism heseems 
to teach that they were ignorant and 
only himself and his followers were 
wise!!! 

Nestorius’ heresies are condemned 
in Cyril of Alexandria’s XII. Anathe- 
mas, which are approved by the Third 
Ecumenical Council, and by the first 
VII. Canons of that Christian-World- 
representing Synod, and by the Defi- 
nition and the Canons of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council; and in the Ox- 
ford translation of St. Cyril on the In- 
carnation against Nestorius, passim. 


by Cyril. 


context they 
are refuted: 
Compare Nes- 
torius’ language 
on pages 155- 
165 above. 


I have not 
been able to find 
this passage in 
Cyril’s) eve 
Book Contradic- 
tion of the Blas- 


phemties of Nes- 


torius. On page 
156 above Nes- 


torius accuses 
Cyril of ignor- 
ance, because 


he did not agree 
with his heres- 
ies. 


Additional Notes. 549 


All the foregoing Twenty Passages from Nestorius I deem to 
be taken out of his Sermons. But as to the arrangement of the 
Sermons there is much difference, as any one can readily see by ex- 
amining the headings of those extracts in Act I. of the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod, and then comparing the arrangement of the matter 
of those Sermons in Galland. Bzbloth. Vet. Patr., tome 8, with that 
in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 48. Things look very much as 
though the sheets had got mixed or jumbled up in some queer way. 

In note *‘n,”’ pp. 48, 49 of his English translation of S. Cyril 
on the Incarnation against Nestorius, Pusey states: 

‘In the volume from which the extracts were taken for the 
Council of Ephesus, the Sermon on Dogma seems to have nearly fol- 
lowed that which Mercator gives us complete, pp. 56-70, and which 
is there called Sermon 2, for the extracts from this Sermon 2 are ex- 
tracted from the 15th and 16th quires; see Mercator’s Opera, pp. 
205, 207, 210, Bal.: while the two extracts given from the Sermon 
on Dogma are from the 16th and 17th quires, viz.: this one from the 
16th (Merc. p. 201, or 17th as Greek edd.), and the extract at the 
head of Section 8 below from the 17th quire (Merc. p. 205). ‘The 
Greek editions of the Council however, agree with Mercator in sty]- 
ing this extract εἰς δόγμα, [that is, ‘‘ 02 dogma,’’] but omit the words 
in the title to the other extract, appending it instead to two citations 
from the 15th quire; one of which is in part at the head of Section 
14, the other is given by S. Cyril both there and in his letter to Aca- 
cius of Melitene, written after the reconciliation with the Eastern 
Bishops, Epp. p. 115, 1. 5-9.”’ 

ARRANGEMENT OF THE TWENTY PASSAGES ΟΕ NESTORIUS FOR 
WHICH HE WAS DEPOSED IN AcT I. oF THE THIRD Εου- 
MENICAL SYNOD, ACCORDING TO THE SERMONS FROM WHICH 
THEY WERE TAKEN. 

From Sermon 1: Passage 8. 

From Sermon 2: Passages 1, 5, 6, 9, 10. 

From Sermon 3: Passages 4, 15 

From Sermon 5: Passages 2, 3. 

From Sermon 6: Passages 11, 16, part of Passage 17. 

From Sermon 7: Passage 7, part of Passage 8, Passages 14 
and 19. 

From Sermon 9: Passage 18. 


550 Act I. of Ephesus. 


From Sermon 10: Passage 13. 
From Sermon 11: Passage 12. 
Passage 20, I have not found. 


To recapitulate: 


From Sermon 2 are taken - - Passages. 
bd 
Pron sermon +3350 0" - - = 2 a 
Front sermon) 57° °)/) Ὁ - - 2 ri 
From Sermon’ 6) °° °° - - - 2 ἐς 
Fromm sermon 7. “Ὁ - - 4 ἐν 
Prom ΘΕΙ͂ΟΙ G7 (4 61" ” - - I τὸ 
Pron Θα ΤΟ 5/0 > - - Ι Ἢ 
From-Sermon, rr ‘7. )™ - - at 2 
Total of Passages found, - = EG 


The Latin headings of the Sermons from which one or more 
passages are taken, as in Migne’s edition, in tome 48 of his Patro- 
logia Latina, are as follows: 

Sermon 1. “Ὁ the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”’ 


Sermon 2. ‘‘Onx Dogma or the knowledge of God, that is, on the 
unconfused conjoining of the Two Natures in Christ and on the Com- 
munion of their names, as though against the Apollinarians.”” 


Sermon 3. ‘Delivered by Nestorius as though against the Arians 
and the Macedonians, but in fact against Catholic defenders of the true 
union of the Natures in Christ.’ ‘This title is evidently not Nestor- 
ius’, but from its use of Catholic for Orthodox is by a Western, at 
least that use of Catholic is. 


Sermon 5. ‘‘Ox God as born, and on the Virgin as Bringer 
Forth of God, which is the Second against Proclus.”’ 


Sermon 6. ‘‘On the words of the Epistle of the Apostle to the Fle- 
brews: ‘Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our Profession, Jesus,’ 
etc. (Hebr. iii.,-1).”’ 

Sermon 7. ‘‘Which is the Fourth against Proclus, Against 
those who on account of the conjoining [of the Two Natures], ether 
make dead the divinity (1) of the Word or deify the humanity.” 


(1). Or, ‘make the Divinity to be mortal.” This latter rendering more 
accords with our English idiom. 


Additional Notes. bol 


Sermon 9. ‘‘On the following passage of Scripture: ‘If thou 
rememeberest that thy brother hath any thing against thee,’ as though 
against [leretics.”’ 


Sermon io. “As though against the Macedonians, but in fact 
against the Catholic defenders of the true Incarnation.’ An annota- 
tor in Migne tells us that he added this title himself. See Migne’s 
Patrol. Latina, tome 48, col. 829, note ‘‘a.”’ 


Sermon 11. ‘“‘dgainst the Arians, on the following words of 
Isaiah, ‘To us a child is given, and to us a Son ts born,’ (Isaiah 
PEG) 

But these headings are for the most part not those of Nestorius, 
but are simply additions of copyists or editors, and are of very little 
authority or worth. They are not the same in Galland. Bibliotheca 
Veterum Patrum, tome 8, which lacks any extended headings ex- 
cept such as relate to the date; and the matter of the Sermons is 
arranged very differently. I quote the headings there: 

‘‘Sermon 1 of Nestorius.’’ 

‘‘Another Tractate: 

Sermon 2 of Nestorius.”’ 

‘‘Another Tra¢tate of Nestorius: 

Sermon 3 of Nestorius.’’ ‘‘Another Sermon of the same [Nes- 
torius] delivered in Church, after he had received the letters of 
warning from Celestine, Bishop of Rome, and of Cyril of Alexandria, 
on the eighth day before the Ides of December (a), when the 
Augusti, Theodosius, and Valentinian, were Consuls; Theodosius 
for the thirteenth time and Valentinian for the third time, five days 
after he received the same letters: Sermon 4 of Nestorius.’’ 


“Here begins another of the same [Nestorius], on another 
day, that is, on Lord’s Day: Sermon 5 of Nestorius.’’ 

The other sermons of Nestorius in tome 8 of Galland. Azb/io- 
theca Veterum Patrum are put down as against Pelagius. The Greek 
headings seem to be mainly lost. ‘Those of which I have been 
writing are in Latin in different editions of Marius Mercator. 


(2). In our time this would be Dec. 6, 430. 


552 Act I. of Ephesus. 


IN MEMORY OF A MIRACLE OF GOD’S MERCY TO ME 
AND TO THIS SET AND TO THE DONORS TO 
THE FUND: TO PUBLISH THE τ 
SYNODS. 


On Oct, 10, 1893, at about 10.30 or 11.00 P. M. a fire burst out 
in a printery on the third floor of 41 Beekman street, New York 
City, and destroyed property in it. 

My electrotype plates, pages 1 to 470 inclusive, were in See- 
beck Brothers, the Electrotypers, on the floor above, in the same 
building, the top floor of all, and were preserved by God from any 
harm. Ifthey had been destroyed it would have ruined me, and 
this work of translating the VI. Councils, for others had given me 
the money to pay 50 per cent. of composition and electrotyping, and 
might have been discouraged, and refused to do more. But God 
brought the engines in time, and they put out the fire, though it was 
directly under my plates with nothing but the floor between. Some 
of the beams and some of the flooring below were burned. The 
damages I was told were about 3,000 dollars. The cause of the 
fire I was told was unknown. 


With a heart full of gratitude to Almighty God for this new 
evidence of His care and mercy and guarding providence, I thank 
Him and take courage to go on with the work He has given me for 
His Church and His people everywhere. May he bring it to a suc- 
cessful end and completion. Let us all pray and work together to 
this aim for the enlightment, the benefit, and the salvation of all. 


ΤΠ Bs ce, ng 


INDEX TO THE NAMES OF THE BISHOPS WHO WERE 
PRESENT IN PERSON OR BY THEIR REPRESENT- 
ATIVES. AT THER OPENING OF ACT I, OF THE 
THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND OF THE 
FEW PRELATES WHOSE NAMES ARE 
MENTIONED IN THAT ACT AFTER 
THE OPENING BUT BEFORE THE 
FINAL SUBSCRIPTIONS TO 
iW, AND» ALSO OF VALE 
WHO SUBSCRIBED AT 
THE END OF ACT I. 


These names are gathered from the printed lists above on pages 
22-29 and 489-503, and from the Acts; and are here put in alphabet- 
ical order in two Lists as follows : 


LIST I. 


LIST OF BISHOPS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING OF 
ACT I. OF EPHESUS; EITHER IN THEIR OWN PERSONS, OR 
BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALSO THE NAMES 
OF THE FEW PRELATES WHO ARE MENTIONED 
AS TAKING PART IN THE ACT DURING ITS 
COURSE, THOUGH THEY ARE NOT 
MENTIONED IN THE LIST ON 
PAGES 22-29 AS PRESENT 
AT ITS OPENING. 


Hefele, in his History of the Church Councils, Volume III., page 
46, computes from the Lists below that, 

‘‘No fewer than 160 bishops were present from the beginning’? [of 
Act I.] or, as he adds in a note on the same page, ‘‘ More exactly, 


554 Act I. of Ephesus. 


there were 159 bishops and one deacon, Bessula of Carthage, as repre- 
sentative of his bishop. And when,’’ he remarks in the text there, 
‘‘(still at the first session) the document of deposition came to be sub- 
scribed, theiy number had increased-to 198.”’ 

On the same page he tells us that ‘‘stxty-ezght Astatic bishops, 
among whom were, in particular, Theodoret of Cyrus and the * * * 
metropolitans of Apamea and FHterapolis, in a letter to Cyril 
and Juvenal, had requested that they would be pleased to defer the open- 
ing of the Synod until the arrival of bishops from Antioch.’ At the 
end of Act I., ‘‘ Twenty of those sixty-eight Asiatic bishops * * * 
had gone over to the side of the Synod, as ts clear from a comparison of 
their names with the subscriptions of the Synodal “4215. In List II. 
below I put in capitals all those of the 68 Prelates whose names are 
not in the list of those who were present at the opening of the Ortho- 
dox Council, but who subscribed at the end of its Act I. 

Two other names found in the list of the 68 are found also in 
the list of those Bishops who were present at the beginning of Act 
I. They are Berinianus of Pergain Pamphylia (on page 23), and 
Dalmatius of Cyzicus (on page 23 above). They are put in capitals 
in List I. This makes 22, out of the 68, present and signing Act I. 
One or two, however, I do not feel sure of. for there is a difference 
in the spelling of the name or see. 

The number of bishops actually present at the opening of the 
Council in their own persons was therefore 159. ‘Three others, 
Celestine of Rome, Rufus of Thessalonica and Capreolus of Carthage, 
all Metropolitans, the first and the last among the greater Metropol- 
itans, were represented by others; Celestine by Cyril of Alexandria, 
Rufus of Thessalonica by Flavian of Philippi, and Capreolus by 
Bessula, a deacon; making a total of 162 present in person or by 
proxy at the opening. Besides, we find Constantine, a bishop of 
Phrygia Pacatiana voting on page 132, and Helladius of Adramy- 
tium on page 154, and Stephen of Dium on page 140. This swells 
the number to 165. As to three others I am doubtful; that is, I do 
not know whether Perrebius of the Thessalian Forests is the same as 
Perecius of Pharmalus, nor do I feel sure whether Saidas of Phaenis 
on page 138 and 142 is the same as Saida of Phaenes on 
page 24, or whether they represent two or three different persons; 
nor can J tell whether Theodore of the Anenysians is the same as 
Theodore of Aninetum. 


[hndex 7. 555 


A, 


Abraham of Ostracina, 28, 499. 

Acacius of Arca, 23. 

«icacius of Cotena, 26; called also ‘‘Acacius, Bishop of Cotena in Pamphylia,’’ 
136, 495. 

Acacius of Melitene, in Armenia, 23, 52, 131, 168, 386, 396, 445-417, 418, 490. 

Adelphius of Onuphis, 27; signs as ‘‘Adelphius, Bishop of the Church of the 
Onuphites,’’ on page 497. 

Adelphius of Sais, 27, 149, 497. 

Aeanes or Aeanus, Bishop of Sycamazon,; Aeanus, 24; called also, ‘‘Aeanes, 
Bishop of Sycamazon,’’ 139 and 174; printed ‘‘“djanes, 496.”’ 

Aetherius, a Deacon: see ‘‘ Theodore of Gadara,’’ in this List. 

Agathocles of Colonia, 24; called also ‘‘Agathocles, Bishop of the City of the 
Coronaeans,’’ 491. Should Co/. be Cor,? 

Alexander of Arcadiopolis, 25; called also “‘ Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis 
in Asia,’’ 139, 494. 

Alexander of Cleopatris, 28, 498. 

Alypius of Sela, 28; he is called ‘‘Alypius, Bishop of Sela, in the province of 
Augustammica,’’ I51, 499. 

Ammon of Butus, 28; he is called ‘Ammon, Bishop of the City of Butus,’”’ 151. 
On page 499 he signs as ‘‘Ammon, Bishop of the City of the Butinians.”’ 

Ammontius, of Panephesus [or of Panephysus], 29; he is called ‘“Ammonius, 
Bishop of the City of Panephysus, in the province of Augustamnica,”’ 
151. Thesee is spelled Panephysus on page 500. 

Ampela [or “ Theodulus’’] of Elusa, 24. See ‘‘ Theodulus.’’ 

Amphilochius of Sida in Pamphylia, 23, 132, 176, 490. 

Anderius of Chersonesus in Crete, 24, 45, 46, 47. He is called ‘‘Anderius, 
Bishop of Cherronesus, a city of the province of Crete,’’ 150, 493. 

Andrew of Hermopolts, 28; he is called ‘‘ Andrew, Bishop of Hermopolis in the 
Thebaid,’’ 154, 499. 

Anysius of Thebae [that is, ‘‘Thebes’’] in Greece, 24, 47, 49, 134, 491. 

Apella of Cibyrrha, 25; called also, ‘‘Apellas, Bishop of Cibyrrha in Caria,’ 
143, 492. 

Aphobius of Colon [or ‘of Colona’’], 25, 141. He is called on page 494, 
‘ Aphobius, Bishop of Colona.’’ 

Aphthonetus of Heraclea, 25; called also ‘‘ Aphthonetus, Bishop of Heraclea in 
Caria,’’ 144, 492. 

Aporus [or ‘‘Euporus’’] of Hypepa, 25. On page 493 he signs himself, 
“« Fuporus, Bishop of Hypaepa.”’ 

Archelaus of Myndus, 25; called also ‘‘Archelaus, Bishop of the City of 
Myndus in Caria,’’ 143, 492. 

Aristobulus of Thmuts, 27, 176, 499. 

Astrapetus [of what see ?], 26. 

Athanasius of Paralus, 27, 45,146. On page 497 he signs as, ‘‘ Athanasius, 
Bishop of Paralius.”’ 


556 List of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 


Athanasius of FParosithus, 25. Is he the same as Athanasius, Bishop of the 
island Parasus, who is mentioned on page 494, but is not mentioned at 
the beginning of Act I., unless he be the same as Athanasius of Paro- 
sithus ? But neither in Bingham nor in Wiltsch do I find a see of Faro- 
stthus or Parasus Compare note I100, page 495. 


Da 


BERINIANUS OF PERGA IN PAMPHYLIA, 23, 503. He was present at the begin- 
ning of Act I. 

Bessula, a Deacon of Carthage, 29, text, and note 57, 481. See Capreolus of 
Carthage, whose representative he was. 


. Γ: 


Caesarius, a Chorepiscopus, 26; called ‘‘ Caesarius, Chorepiscopus of the City of 
Alce,’’ on page 495. 

Callicrates of Naupactus, 24, 134, 491. 

CAPREOLUS OF CARTHAGE, 29, note 57; see Besula, 481, 486. 

CELESTINE OF ROME, 22, 29, 31, 32, note 57; 179-203, 209, 212, 487. He was not. 
present in person but was represented in Act I. by Cyrilof Alexandria. See 
pages 22, 202 and 203, and note 57, page 29. It is observable, however, 
that none of the three proxies mentioned in that note signs the name 
of the prelate whom he represents, but only hisown. Even Bessula, the 
Deacon, who, as such, had no right to sign among Bishops, but only as 
the representative of Capreolus, his Bishop, does not mention him in his 
signature nor sign his name, but only hisown. But in every such case 
of proxies in this Synod, the representative who signs his own name, if a 
Bishop, like Cyril of Alexandria or Flavian of Philippi, must be under- 
stood to sign for himself and the one for whom he is a representative. 
On page 496, Selenespondius, a Presbyter, subscribes for Cyril, Bishop of 
Pylae, ‘‘because,’’ he adds, ‘‘he suffers in his hand.’ But, as we see 
from pages 21, 22 and 24, that Cyril was present and had taken his seat 
among the Bishops; so that Selenespondius was not his place-holder, for 
he held his own place, but merely his amanuensis. As a presbyter he 
had no right to sit or sign as co-ordinate with Bishops, but only as an 
amanuensis for one or more of them. For the Episcopate alone is the 
supreme teaching and ruling order of the Church, and its members 
alone may sit and vote in Councils. This is the only system known to 
the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils, the only Ecumenical 
Councils which made Canons. Aetherius, a Deacon, signs for Theodore, 
Bishop of Gadara, but merely as his amanuensis, as his own words show. 
See Zheodore of Gadara. Bessula the Deacon alone, of the three non 
Bishops, signs for an absent Bishop as his representative. 

Chrysaorius of Aphrodita, 28;0n page 498, he signs as ‘‘ Bishop of the Aphro- 
ditans.”’ 


Index TI, 557 


Constantine, a Bishop of Phrygia Pacatiana, 132. Is ‘‘ Constantine, Bishop of 
the City of the Diocletians’’ on page 500 the same? There was a Dioclia 
there, according to Bingham and Wiltsch. 

Qyril of Alexandria, in the Adts, etc., 22; 29, note 57; 31, and note 61; 42, 52, 
53, 61, 129, 166, 181, 195, 202, 204, 206, 362, 392, 393, 393-399, 486, 489. 

Cyril of Pyli [or of Pylae], in the Chersonesus; 24, 496, where he is called 
‘Cyril, Bishop of Pylae.’’ 

Cyrus of Achaei, 28; called ‘‘ Cyrus, Bishop of the Achaeans’’ on page 497. 

Cyrus of Aphrodisias in Caria, 23; called also ‘‘ Cyrus, Bishop of the City Aph- 
vodisias, in the province of Caria,’’ 131, 490. 


D. 


DALMATIUS OF CyZICUS, 23, 501. He was present at the beginning of Act I. 

Daniel of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda, 23, 134, 490. 

Daniel of Darnis, 28, 48, 49, 146, 364, 368, 372, 374, 374-376; 499, where thesee 
is written ‘‘ Darna.”’ 

Dion of Thebae in Thessaly, 24, 154, 493. Thebes is the English for Thedae. 

Docimacius of Maronia in Thrace, 23, 140; called also ‘‘ Docitmasius, Bishop 
of Maronia in the Province of Rhodope, in the Diocese of Thrace,”’ 491. 

Domnus of Opus in Flellas, 24, 49, 134; called *‘ Wemnon, a Bishop of the same 
Greece,” or, ‘‘of the same Hellas,’’ on page 47; and ‘‘ Domnus, Bishop 
of the Holy Church of God at Opus,”’ 491. 

Donatus of Nicopolis in Old Epirus, 23, 142, 170, 490. 

Dorotheus, Bishop of the City of Dodona, 142. See ‘‘ Theodore of Dodone,’’ 
who is evidently the same. 

Dorotheus of Myrrhina, 25; called also ‘‘ Dorotheus, Bishop of Myrrhina, a 
city in Asia,’’ 141; called ‘‘of Myrina’”’ on page 494. 


Ee 


Ennepius of Maximianapolis, 24, 140. On page 492 he is called ‘‘Ennepius, 
Bishop of the City of Myxa in the Province of Rhodope.”’ 

Epiphanius of Cratia in Honorias, 23, 137, 491. 

Eucharius of Dyrrachium in New Epirus, 23; ‘“‘ Eucharius, Bishop of Dora- 
cium, 141. See note 225, 490. 

Eudoxius of Choma in Lycia, 23; called also “ Eudoxius, Bishop of Choma, 
a city of Lycia,’’ 141; and on page 503 this Prelate signs as “7, Eudox- 
ius, Bishop of the City of Choma in the province of Lycia.”’ 

Eulogius of Terenuthis, 27, 503. 

Euporus, Bishop of Hypaepa, 493. On page 25 this name is given ‘‘ Aporus 
[or Luporus] of Hypepa.”’ 

Eusebius of Aspona in Galatia, 26; he is called ‘ Husebius, Bishop of Aspona, 
acity of Ancyra,’’ 146; but see note 250. On page 495 he is called 
“‘ Eusebius, Bishop of the Asponians.”’ 

Eusebius of Clazomenae, 26; called ‘‘ Eusebius, Bishop of the Clazomenians,’’ 


on page 494. 


558 List I. of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 


Eusebius of Heraclea in Honorias, 26; called also ‘‘ Eusebius, Bishop of Hera- 
clea in the Province of Honorias,’’ 137, 491. 

Eusebius of Magnesia, 26; called also ‘‘ Lusebius, Bishop of Magnesia, a city 
in Asia,’’ 142, 494. 

Eusebius of Nilopolis, 28; he is called ‘‘ Eusebius, Bishop of Nilopolis in the 
Province of Arcadia,’’ 147, 498. 

Eusebius of Pelusium, 27, 176, 496. 

Euthalius of Colophon, 26; Euthalius, Bishop of Colophon in Asia, 140; on 
page 494 he is called ‘‘ Bzshop of the City of the Colophonians.”’ 

Eutropius of Aegea, 25; called also ‘‘ Eutropius, Bishop of Evaza,’’ 139 and 
294; see note 30, page 25. 

Lutropius of £tena, 26; called also ‘‘ Eutropius, Bishop of Etena in Pamphy- 
11455395 

Lutychius of Erythra, 26; called also ‘‘ Hutychius, Bishop of Erythra, a city of 
Asia,’’ 142. On page 493 he is called ‘‘ Zychicus of Erythra.’’ 

Eutychius of Theodostopolis, 25; he is called ‘‘ Hutychius, Bishop of Theodosi- 
opolis in Asia,’’ 149; and on page 493, ‘‘ Hutychius, Bishop of the Holy, 
Universal and Apostolic Church of God in Theodostopolis.’’ 

Evagrius of Soli, 26; called ‘‘Evagrius, Bishop of Solia,’’ on page 495. 

LEvoptius of Ptolemats in Pentapolis, 27, 152, 173, 496. 


F. 


Felix of Apollonia and of Bellias, 24; called ‘‘Feltx, Bishop of the cities of 
Apollonia and Belts,’’ 490. 

Fidus of Joppa, 24, 133, 174, 385, 398, 496. 

Firmus of Cesarea in Cappadocia Prima, xxxviii., 23; 41, note 102; 48, 129, 
166, 489. 

Flavian of Philippi, 1., 23, 29, note 57; 45, 47, 130, 166, 205, 367, 373, 417, 418, 
449, 479, 489. 

G. 


Gregory of Cerasus in Pontus Polemoniacus, 23, 135, 172, 491. 


f7. 


Helladius, Bishop of Adramytium, 154. On page 500 he signs as “‘ Helladius, 
Bishop of the Holy Church at Adramytum.”’ 

Hellanicus of Rhodes, 23; called also ‘‘ Hellanicus, Bishop of the Metropolis of 
Rhodes,’’ 131, 167, 490. 

Heracleon of Tralles, 25, 142. On page 493 he signs himself ‘‘ 7, Heracleon, 
who am also Theophilus, Bishop of Tralles.”’ 

Heraclides of Heraclea, 28; he is called ‘‘ Heraclides, Bishop of the Heracleans 
in Arcadia,’’ 148. On page 499 he piens himself as ‘‘ Heraclides, Bishop 
of the Upper Heraclea.”’ 

Heraclides of Thints, 28, 497. 

Heraclitus of Tamtathis, 28; 149; 499, where the name is spelled 
“*FHleraclius.”’ 


Index 7. 559 


Hermogenes of Rhinocurura, 27, 44, 152, 173, 496. 

Hesychius of Parium, 23, 153; called also ‘‘Hesychius, Bishop of the City of 
Parium in the Province of Hellespontus,’’ 495. 

Hierax of Aphnaeum, 28; on page 499 he signs as ‘‘Hieraces, Bishop of the 
Aphnazians.”’ 


vi 


Iconius of Gortyna in Crete, 23; called ‘‘ Jconius, Bishop of the City of Gor- 
tyna, the Metropolis of Crete,’’ 131, 167, 490. 

Isaac of Elearchia, 28, 149, 499. 

Isaac of Tava, 28; 503, where the see is Zavla, or Java. The latter and 7 σας 
seem to be the spellings preferred by the copyists. On page 503 the 
reading is “1, Isaac of Tavlae [or Zava or Tabae], have subscribed. 7, 
Adelphius, Bishop of Onuphis, at his request have subscribed for him, 
because he is lying sick.” 


ah: 
John of Augustopolis, 24, 138, 175, 496. 
John of Hephaestus in Augustamnica, 27, 47, 48, 146; 497, where he subscribes 
as ‘‘John, Bishop of the Hephaestians.”’ 
John of Praeconnesus, 23, 132, 495. 
Juvenal of Jerusalem, 23, 32, 49, 129, 166, 178, 489. 


= 


Lampo of Cassium, 27; he is termed ‘‘ Lampetius, Bishop of Casium in the 
Province of Augustamnica, 151.’’ On page 498 he signs as ‘‘ Lampetius, 
Bishop of Cassium.”’ 

Letoius or Letojus of Libyas, 24, 138, 175, 501. 

Lucian of Toperus in Thrace, 24; called also ‘“‘Lucian Bishop of Toperus,’’ 240; it 
was, like Maronia, ‘‘in the Province of Rhodope,”’ 491. 


M. 


Macarius of Anteum, 27, 147, 176, 499. 

Macarius of Metelis, 27; he is called ‘‘ Macarius, Bishop of the Metelitans in 
Egypt,’’ 150, 497. 

Macedonius of Xois, 27, 151; 497, where the see is spelled oes. 

Marianus of Lyrba; see Taurianus of Lyrba. 

Marinus of Heliopolis, 27; he is called ‘‘Marinus, Bishop of Heliopolis, in the 
Province of Augustamnica,’’ 148, 497. 

Martyrius of Helistri, 25; he is called ‘‘Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra,”’ 153 
and 501. 

Matidianus of Coracisia, 26; called also ‘‘Matidianus, Bishop of Coracisia in 
Pamphylia,’’ 136; and on page 495, ‘‘ Bishop of the City of the Cora- 
cisians.”’ 

Maximus of Assos, 25; called also ‘‘ Maximus, Bishop of Assos in Asia,’’ 141, 


494. 


560 List I. of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 


Maximus of Cuma, 25; called also ‘‘ Maximus, Bishop of Cyma, [that is, Cume] 
in Asia, 139, 494. 

Memnon of Ephesus, 23, 42, 129, 169, 489. 

Memnon, a Bishop of Greece, probably for Domnus of Opus in Greece, 47; see 
notes 123, 124. Compare Domnus of Opus in Greece on page 49 and on 
page 24. Memnon of Greece is not in the list on pages 22-29. 

Metrodorus of Leonta, 27, 148, 497. 

Modestus of Anea, 26; called also ‘‘Modestus, Bishop of the City of the 
Anaeans in Phrygia,’’ 141, and ‘‘of the Aneans,’’ on page 494. 


NV. 


Neétarius of Synea, 26; called also, ‘‘ Nectarius, Bishop of Synea in Pamphylia,”’ 
136; 495, where the see is written ‘‘ Sevea.”’ 

Nesius of Corybrassus, 26; called also ‘‘ Nesius, Bishop of Corybrassus in Pam- 
phylia,”’ 137. On page 495 he is called ‘‘ Nesius, Bishop of the holy 
Church of God in Corybosyna.”’ 

Nestorius of Sion, 25; he is called ‘‘ Nestorius, Bishop of Sion in the Province 
of Asia,’’ 150, 493. 

Nicias of Megara, 24, 135, 491. 

Nunechius of Selga, 26; called also ‘‘ Nunechius, Bishop of Selga in Pamphy- 


lia,” 135, 495- 
7: 
Pabiscus of Apollo, 27; probably the same as “‘Pabiscus, Bishop of Apollonia,” 
on page 503. 


Palladius of Amasea in Helenopontus, 23, 131, 154, 170, 490. 

Paralius of Andrapa on the Hellespont, 27, 143, 491. 

Paul of Anthedon, 24, 138, 175, 496. 

Paul of Flavonia, 27, 148. See ‘‘Paul of Phragonea.’’ Ido not find any see 
of Flavonia in Bingham or Wiltsch. 

Paul of Lampa, 24, 45; he is called ‘“‘ Paul, Bishop of the City of Lampa in the 
Province of Crete,’’ 150, 493. 

Paul, Bishop of Phragonea, 496; perhaps the same as ‘‘Paul of Flavonia.”’ 
See it above, and see also in Bingham's Index of the Episcopal Sees at 
the end of his Book X., under Fragonea, Phragonea and Flagonita. It 
was in Aegyptus Secunda, according to Bingham there. ‘‘Paul of Fla- 
vonia”’ is mentioned among the Egyptian Prelates on page 27, and he 
votes among them on page 148. Flavonia seems, therefore, a different 
speliing for the very differently spelled see of Phragonea. 

Paulianus of Maiuma,24; called also ‘‘ Paulianus, Bishop of Maiuma in the 
first Palestine,’’ 134, 174; the see is written J/7ajuma on page 496. 

Perecius [or ¢Perrebius’’] of Pharmalus, 23. 

Perigines of Corinth in Greece, 23, 131, 490. 

Perrebius, Bishop of the Thessalian Forests, 152, 492. 

Peler of Oxyrinchus, 27, 497. 

Feter of Parembola, 24, 45, 138, 175, 496. 


Index ἢ 561 


Fhanias of Harpasa, 25; he is called ‘‘ Phanias, Bishop of the City of Arpasa 
in Caria,"’ 145, 493. 

Philetus of Amazon, 25;he is called ‘Philip, Bishop of Amazon in Caria,’’ 
144, 492. 

Prilip of Amazon. See ‘‘Philetus of Amazon.” 

Lhilip of Pergama in Asia, 25; called also ‘‘ Philip, Bishop of Pergamus,’’ 142° 
and on page 494, ‘‘Philip, Bishop of the City of the Pergamians,”’ 494. 

Philumenus of Cinna, 26; he is called ‘‘ Philumenus, Bishop of the City o1 
Cinna in Galatia,’’ 152, 495. 

Phoebammon of Coptus, 27; he is called ““ Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus in 
Thebais,’’ 153, 176, 496. 

Promachius of Alinda, 25; he is called ‘‘ Promachius, Bishop of Alinda in 
Caria,’’ 145, 493. 

Prothymius of Comana, 23, 132.171. 

Publius of Olbia, 28. 


R. 


Rheginus of Constantia, 26, 492. 

Lehodon of Palaeopolis, 25; he is called “‘Rhodon, Bishop of Palaeopolis in Asia,”’ 
149; SO on page 493. See ‘‘Lzmenius’’ below in List II. 

Romanus of Rhaphia, 23, 135, 172, 496. 

Rufinus of Tabae, 24, 138, 174; called “‘Rufinus, Bishop of the City of the 
Tabanians,’’ 496. 

RUFUS OF THESSALONICA, 23; 29, note 57; 130. He was represented by Flavian of 
Philippi. 

ἊΝ 


Sabinus of Pan, 28; he 15. called ‘‘Sabinus, Bishop of Pan in the Province of 
Thebais,’’ 149, 499. 

Satda of Phaenes, 24; compare Sazdas of Phaenis; called ‘‘Sazdas, Bishop of 
Phaents,’’ 138 and 496. 

“‘ Satdas, Bishop of Phaenis in Palestina Salutaris,” 145. Compare under 
‘“‘Saida.”” ‘‘Sazzda, Béeshop of Phaenis’’ speaks briefly on page 138 in 
this Act in the voting on the Shorter Epistle of Cyril. If he be the 
same as Saida of Phaenes on page 24, he voted twice on that matter, the 
latter time, on page 145, more fully, perhaps to supply what was lacking 
in his vote on page 138. 

Samuel of Dysthis, 28; he iscalled ‘‘Samuel, Bishop of Dysthis in Pentapolis,’’ 
147, 499. 

Sapricius of Paphos in Cyprus, 26, 492. 

Secundianus of Lamia, 24; called also ‘ Secundianus, Bishop of Lamia, a city 
in the Province of Thessaly,’’ 137, 493. 

Selenespondius, a Presbyter and Visitor, subscribes for Cyril, Bishop of Pylae, 
496. 

Senecio of Codra [or of ‘‘Scodra’’] 23; he is called ‘‘Senecion, Bishop of the 
City of Cordia,” on page 145, and ‘‘Senecion, Bishop of the city of 
Codrine,’’ or ‘‘of the Codrine City,’’ on page 490. 


562 List I. of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 


Silvanus of Ceratapa, 27; called also ‘‘ Silvanus, Bishop of Ceratapain Phrygia 
Pacatiana:: 37, 500: 

Silvanus of Chaeretapa in Phrygia, 23. 

Silvanus of Coprithis, 27, 497. 

Solon of Carallia, 26; called also ‘‘Solon, Bishop of Carallia in Pamphylia,”’ 
135, 495- 

Sosipatrus of Septimiaca, 28; he is called on page 147 ‘‘Sosipater, Bishop of 
Septimiaca.”” On page 499 he subscribes, “7, Sostpater, Bishop of Libya 
Septiimiaca.”’ 

Spudasius of Cerami [or ‘‘of Ceramus”’], 25; called also ‘‘ Spudasius, Bishop 
of Ceramus in the Province of Caria,’’ 144, 492. 

Stephen, Bishop of Dium, 140. 

Strategius of Athribis, 27; he is called ‘‘Strategius, Bishop of Athribis in the 
Province of Augustamnica,’”’ 147. He signs on page 498 as ‘‘ Bishop of 
the Church of the Athribites.”’ 


77 


Taurianus of Lyrbae, 26; called also ‘‘Taurianus, Bishop of Lyrba in Pam- 
phylia,” 136. He is called on page 495 ‘‘ Marianus, Bishop of the Church 
in Lyrba.”’ 

Themistius of Jassus, 25; called also ‘‘ Themistius, Bishop of Jassus in Caria,’” 
144, 492. 

Theodore of the Anenysians, 494. See ‘Theodore of Aninetum.”’ 

Theodore of Aninetum, 25, 141. Is ‘‘Theodore, Bishop of the Anenysians,”’ on 
page 494, the same? 

Theodore of Aribela, 24; called also ‘‘ Theodore, Bishop of Arbela,’’ 138; and 
«07, Arbdela,” 174; and ‘‘of Arbdela”’ on page 496. 

Theodore of Dodone, 24 (see ‘‘ Dorotheus, Bishop of the City of Dodona,”’ who 
is evidently the same); 493. 

Theodore of Echinaeus, 25 (called also ‘‘ Theodosius, Bishop of Echinaeus, a 
city in the Province of Thessaly,’’ 138); 493. 

Theodore of Gadara, 24, 138, 174; 503, where he subscribes as follows: “7, 
Theodore, Bishop of Gadara, have subscribed defining. I, Aetherius, a 
Deacon, have subscribed at his command, because he is unable, or does. 
not write.’’ 

Theodosius of Mastaura, 25; called also ‘‘ Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura in 
Asia,” 139, 494. 

Theodosius of Priene, 26; called also ‘‘Theosebius, Bishop of Priene in Asia,’’ 
139; on page 494 he is called ‘‘ Theosebius.”’ 

Theodotus of Ancyra in the First Galatia, 23, 44, 130, 169, 386, 396, 400-414, 
418, 490. 

Theodotus of Nyssa, 25, 494. 

Theodulus of Elusa in Palestine, 24, see ‘“Ampela,;” 45, 46, 47, 133, 173; 496, 
where we find “‘Helusa”’ for ‘‘Elusa.”’ 

Theon of Sethroetus, 27, 146, 498, where he signs ‘‘Theon, Bishop of Heraclea 
of the Sethroetum.”’ 


Index J. 563 


Theonas of Psychis, 29; 498, where he subscribes as “Theonas, Bishop of 
Psynchis.’’ 

Theopemptus of Caoassus, 27, 45, 46, 148, 364, 368, 369-371, 377-384; 498, where 
the see is spelled ‘‘Cadasa,’’ 176, where he is called ‘‘Bishop of Cabasa.’” 

Theosebius of Priene, 139, 494; see Theodosius of Priene. 

Thomas of Derbe, 25; called also ‘‘Thomas, Bishop of Derbe !n Lvcaonia,’’ 143,, 
501. 

Timothy of Briula, 25. See ‘“‘Heliotheus, Bishop of the Briulitans”’ in the 
List below. 

Tribonianus of Aspendus in Pamphylia, 26. Is this the same as ‘“ Triboni- 
anus, Bishop of the holy Church in Priamopolis,’? on page 495? See 
note I103 there. 

Tribonianus of Priamopolis, 495; see Tribonianus of Aspendus. 

Tychicus, Bishop of the City of the Erythraeans [or, ‘‘of the Erythrans’’], 493. 
He seems to be the same as “‘ Eutychius of Erythra’’ on page 26. See 
also page 142, where Erythra is called ‘‘a city of Asia.” 


i 


Valerian of Icontum, 23, 132, 167, 501. 


Ze 


Zeno of Curium, 26; he is called ‘‘Zeno, Bishop of the City of Curium in 


Cyprus,” 153, 495. 

Zeno of Teuchira, 28, 499. 

Zenobius of Barca, 28. On page 499 he subscribes as ‘‘ Zenobius, Bishop of 
Barca in Pentapolis.’’ 

Zenobius of Gnossus, 24; he iscalled ‘‘ Zenobius, Bishop of the city of Gnossus, 
in the Province of Crete,’’ 150, 493- 


564 List I. of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 


The following is the summing up as to the number of Bishops 


under each letter. 


a 


B: 
Ge 


Ὥς 


Υ. 
Ζ 


27 Bishops, and Aetherius, a Deacon, or if Ampela and Theodulus of Elusa 
be the same, then there were but 26 Bishops. 

1 Bishop, and Bessula, a Deacon. 

10 Bishops; of whom 2, Capreolus and Celestine, were not present, but 
represented—8. 

9 Bishops; but Theodore of Dodona and Dorotheus of Dodona are seem- 
ingly the same, hence there are only 8 Ds. 

19 Bishops; but Euporus of Hypaepa seems to be the same as Aporus of 
Hypeva, so that there are only 18 Es. 

4 Bishops. 
1 Bishop. 
9 Bishops. 
3 Bishops. 
4 Bishops. 
3 Bishops. 

13 Bishops; but Taurianus of Lyrba and Marianus of Lyrba seem to be the 
same, and Memnon of Greece and Domnus of Opus are the same, 
so that there are only 11 Ms. 

5 Bishops. 

22 Bishops; if Philetus of Amazon and Philip of Amazon be the same 
there are only 21 Ps, and if Paul of Flavonia be the same as 
Paul of Phragonea, there are only 20 Ps. 

5 Bishops. 

15 Bishops; a Presbyter, Selenespondius subscribes for Cyril of Pylae. See 
Cyril of Pylior Pylae. And if Saida and Saidas are the same, 
and Silvanus of Ceratapa and Silvanus of Chaeretapa are the 
same, there are only 13 Ss present. 

22 Bishops; if Taurianus of Lyrba and Marianus of Lyrba be the same, and 
Theosebius of Priene and Theodosius of Priene are the same, 
there are but 20. Taurianus should be counted here, because 
Marianus is not above. If Theodore of the Anenysians and 
Theodore of Aninetum are the same, there are only 19. 

I Bishop. 
4 Bishops. 


At the lowest computation, allowing for all mistakes and possible 


repetitions of the same name, the count would be, of Bishops present 
in Act I. in person or by their representatives: 


: 26. Bishops (222-425. 35- 2S 24. SS ΘὅὍὨ(Κιειι  ὐν  Θ ΞΞΞΞΞΒΞΒῃ{{0Π 26 
1 Bishop, 1 Deacon, Bessula, representing a Bishop----~-------------_-- 2 
. 10 Bishops, 2 of them by their representatives only_----_-- === = eeeaeeee IO 
8 Bishops 1-2--2.22222222 5220s ΞΘ ΘΘ ΘΘΘΘΘΘ ῃᾳῃ0ᾳ0.ᾳῃ 8 


) 18 Bishops 242-2 22 ee ee ee ΘΒ ΒΞ ῃΕΚ5 18 


Index I. 565 


ΠΟΘ τ τ τος το σεν το στ σε 4 
ἘΠ Βιπορ τὲ τ ee eee ele δ ean eat SE ΟΝ I 
Meee Eats) Se ee ee 9 
Ly ϑιπῦρ ae ee ee του θυ 3 
JS gu BSNS CIS ee 9 Ὅπου δ σν 4 
Ai 22) BSG) 05 Sal SS {τ eee ΕΣ 3 
ΔΘ bISHODS = τ... ρει οι τ τ ee eee II 
eee ΒΙΒΠΌΡΘ τας --...0..0.5 ee eee eee 5 
(hy ΟΊ ΕΟ. τ΄ ee eee πες 
ee Gass OPS --- a --  -- - Ξε ee ee 
ΓΕ aN ee es 
Se) aS RIG) 0) ae eee see a eee τ ee as 
WYSE TIDES VG) 5) La SAR Sn νὸς ey Ee a a A a a ly Se τε I 
FAS, ΕΞ TC) 0 See Renee ea aera ep ee SS De gee τ θεῖν 4 

forailowest Conmiputation ) 222 s2e ο΄ λον ee Σ 166 

LIS, it. 


NAMES OF BISHOPS AT THE END OF ACT I. OF EPHESUS WHO 
ARH NOT IN: THE FIRST LIST, THAT IS NOT IN THE LIST 
OF PRELATES AT ITS BEGINNING, OR WHO ARE 
NOT MENTIONED AS TAKING PART IN IT. 


A 


Ablavius, Bishop of Amorium ; Sor. 

AEDESIUS, Bishop of the City Isioda ; 502. 

Arginus of Pempetopolis. On page 500 we read, “17. Arginus, Bishop of Pom- 
petopolis in Paphlagontia, have subscribed. I Synesius, a Presbyter, have 
subscribed for him because he is unwell.”’ 

Aristocritus, Bishop of Olympus, 503. 

Aristonicus, the least, Bishop of the Metropolis of the Laodiceans, 500. 

ASCLEPIADES, Lishop of the Church at Trapezopolis, 500. 

Athanasius, Bishop of the Church at Dueltus and Sozopolis, σοι. 

“* Athanasius, Bishop of the Island Parasus,” 494. See Athanasius of Parosi- 
thus, in the list above. Are they the same? We cannot say. 

Athanasius, Bishop of the city of the Scepsians, in the province of Hellespontus, 
501. 


Di 


“* Beneagus, Bishop tn the Church in FNierapolis. I, Paul, a Presbyter, have 
subscribed for him, he being present, and at his command,”? etc., 500. 

Bosporius of Gangra. On page 500 we read, “7, Bosporius, Bishop of Gangra, 
the Metropolis of the province of Pamphylia, have subscribed, defining 
together with the Holy Synod. I Hypatius, a Presbyter deputed by him, 
have subscribed, because he himself is sick.’’ 


566 List (7; List of Bishops not init 7. 


CG: 


Callinicus, Bishop of Apamia [or, ‘‘of Apamea”’’] ; 501. 

Commopws, Bishop of Tripolis ; 502. 

‘‘Constantine, Bishop of the city of the Diocletians,’? 500. See in the list 
above under ‘‘ Constantine, a Bishop of Phrygia Pacatiana.’’ Were they 
the same? Wecan not tell. 


7). 


Daphnus, Bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander, 503. 
Domninus, Bishop of Cotneum [or ‘of Cotyaium,” or ‘‘ of Cotyaeum.’’] in the 
Province of Phrygia Salutaris, 501. 


Es, 


EUGENE, 4ishop of Apollonias, 501. 

‘“RUPREPIUS, Lishop of Bizya, 503. 

Eustathius, Bishop of Docimium in the Province of Phrygia Salutaris, 501. 
‘‘“RuUTHERIUS, Of the city of the Stratonicians in Lydia,’’ 502. 


Vek 


fTeliotheus, Bishop of the Briulitans, 494. Is this the same as 7imothy of 
Briula? We cannot say ; see it in the list above. 

Flelladius, of an unknowu see. On page 500, one subscribes as ‘‘I, Helladius, 
Bishop of the holy Church of God * * *.’? There is a lacuna in the 
text where the name of the see should be. 

HERMOLAUS, Bishop of the Sattudians, 500. Is this Hermolaus, Bishop of the 
Attudians in the list of the 68 Bishops, who would at first have deferred 
the opening of the Third Synod till the arrival of John of Antioch? 

Hypatius, a Presbyter; see “‘ Bosporius of Gangra.”’ 


ip 
LIddyas, Bishop of Smyrna, 500. 


we 
Joun, Bishop of Aurelianopolis, in the Province of Lydia, 502. 
Joun, Bishop of Lesbos, 50%. 


Be 


Leontius, Bishop, 497. A lucuna marks where the see should be mentioned, 
497. 

“Tipanius, Bishop of Palacopolis, 502. Bingham mentions two sees of Faleo- 
polis, one in Asia Proconsularis, (where Rhodon was Bishop; see his 
name in List I. above), and another in Pamphylia Secunda, which is this. 
This Bishop appears to be the same as Libanius of Paula in the list of the 
68 who wished the opening of the Synod to be deferred till the arrival of 
John of Antioch and his Bishops. 


Lndex I. | 567 


““Limenius, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Sellae in the Province of 


Medta,’’ 502. 
M. 
MEONIUS, Bishop of the city of Sardis in Lydia, 5or. 
NV. 
Netoras of Gaza, 496. 
ἢ κε 


Paul, of Dardana in Lydia, 502. He subscribes there thus, “I, Paul, the 
least, Bishop of Dardana in Lydia, have subscribed, defining together with 
the Holy Synod, using the hand at my command for writing of the 
brother and fellow minister, Phoscus, because I am lying down in 
sickness.”’ 

** Paul, Bishop of the Church in Thrymnae,”’ 502. 

PETER, the least, Bishop of Crusa, 501. Is this the same as ‘‘ Peter of Prusa ”’ 
in the list of the 63 Bishops who wished the Synod to wait for John of 
Antioch? If not, he should not be in capitals. Crusa is not mentioned 
in Bingham cr in Wiltsch. 

Philadelphius, Bishop of the Gratianopolitans, 496. 

PuHoscus, Bishop of Thyatira, 502. This name is spelled Fuscus in the Latinof 
the list of 68 Bishops who wished the Council deferred till the coming of 
the Orientals. 

Pius, Bishop of Pessinus, 50%. 


5. 


Serentanus, Bishop of the City of the Myrians, 496. 

SEVERUS, Bishop of Synnada in the Province of Phrygia Salutaris, sor. 
Stephen, Bishop of the city of the Tettans in Asia, 500. 

Synesius, a Presbyter. See under Arginus of Pompeiopolis. 


i & 


“* Theoétistus, Bishop of the city of the Phocaeans,’’ 496. But can this be the 
same as 7heonas of Psychis on page 29? They are quite different. 
THEODORE, Lishop of Atala, 502. If Atala is not Attalia, his name should not 

be in capitals. 

THEOPHANES, Lishop of the city of Philadelphia, 502. In the list of 68 names 
of Bishops who wished the Synod deferred till the arrival of John of 
Antioch and the Orientals this name is spelled 7Theophanius, if this 
Philadelphia is the same. 

Thomas, Bishop of Valentinianopolts, 503. 

““TimotHy, Bishop of the city Termesus and Eudocias,”’ 502. 

‘““TimotHy, Bishop of the city of the Thermans, in the Province of Hellespont- 
us,’’? 502. If thissee is not the same as Germa (on which see Bing- 
ham, Book IX., Chap. III., Sect. 8), Timothy should not be in capitals. 


δι 
Oo 
[96] 


ΤΣ List of Bishops ot ΤΣ Laser 


“Timotuy , Bishop of * * * in the Province of the Scythians,” 501. There isa 
lucuna here where the name of the see should be. If it was in Scythia 
south of the Danube, it should be Tomi; ifinScythia north of the Danube 
the name of the see is uncertain. See Bingham’s Antiquities, Book IX., 
Chapter IV., Sections 1 and 15. 


Here are twenty names which are found among the 68 prelates 
who wished the opening of the Ecumenical Council deferred till after 
the arrival of John of Antioch and his Bishops, and were not present 
at the opening of its Act I., but who sign at its end to what had 
been done. And if one or two of them be doubtful, the twenty is 
fully made up by Berinianus of Perga and Dalmatius of Cyzicus, 
who were of the 68, but who were present at the opening of Act I. 
Here are forty-nine names in all, and leaving out the Presbyter 
Synesius’ name, forty-eight of them were Bishops. As is explained 
above, a few of them may belong to Prelates in the List next above, 
for the same name is sometimes differently spelled, because copiers 
once in a while made slips in their work. At the end of Act TI. 
there were therefore present about 200 Prelates who subscribed. 


ὍΤΙ τουϑῶς, 1 


GENERAL INDEX. 


The figures in Roman refer to the pages of the Forematter; 
those in Arabic to the body of the work. The Forematter really 
extends to the end of page 18.. Page 19 begins the Acts. 


The reader should consult each term in the General /ndex to 
Volume I. of Wicaea in this Set, wherever it is found there. So 
should he consult the General Indexes to the volumes of this Set 
which, God willing, are to follow. The same article may be much 
fuller in one volume than in another, so that the best way is to 
search for the same expression in all the Indexes where it may be 
found. ‘The reader must not infer that because the General [ndex 
of Vol. I. of Vzcaea is referred to under some words, it is always. 
It is not. References to Fathers and Councils and short quotations 
may be found in that Index where no reference is made to them in 
this Index. 

Names of Bishops at the Council must be sought in Index I. 
A few, like Cyril, for instance, are mentioned here also because of 
their utterances and acts elsewhere. 


Fale 


Abuses; in the Church, 5; should be done away, 5. 

Adoption, the Nestorian heresy that Christ’s humanity, their whole Christ, is 
merely an adopted Son of God, as other men are; and that he was adopted 
because of his progress in virtue, 71, note 160, and 168, note 355. 
See under Christ, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nazianzus, 
Cyril of Alexandria, and Nestorius, Relative Conjunction, Relative 
Indwelling, Relative Participation and Relative Worship, the outcome of 
the last three errors, and Union of Christ’s two Natures. See page 764. 

Africa North, that is, Latin Africa; resists Rome’s claim to Appellate Juris- 
diction over it, xxxiii.; 39, note 94; 483-485, and notes there; see Aphesus, 


570 Act I, of Ephesus. 


and the note on pages 427, 428; the Letter of the Africans, and that of 
Augustine to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, 194, note 487. See Chrystal: 
the enactments of the Council of Carthage against appeals from Africa to 
Rome embodied by the Greeks in their Trullan Code, 427, 428, note. See 
Chrystal and Capreolus. God’s curses on Latin Africa for its invocation 
of creatures and for its worship ‘‘of pictures and of sepulchres,”’ 176, note 
388. See Chrystal and Capreolus, and Augustine, and Image Worship, 
Pittures, Nestorius and his Heresies; Heresy 2; and see Worship, heads 

_ I, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11; see Jmage Worship, Relative Worship, Man Wor- 
ship, and Relic Worship; and see under such of those heads as are found 
in the General [Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 

Aldrich, Dean, on real presence, expression and doctrine, 303, subnote ‘‘a.”’ 

Alexander of Apamea; from John of Antioch tells the Synod not to wait, li. 

Alexander of Hierapolis,; says the same from John, 11. 

Alexandria, Patriarch of; his jurisdiction, 413, note 702; announced the date 
of the Pask at least to the East, note 765, page 433; see Theophilus. 
Altar-worship, an error, 5; condemned by Ephesus, Preface, i., ii. All altars 
anciently consecrated to God only, but Rome has now altars to the Virgin 
Mary and to St. Joseph, note 22, pages 21, 22; and they are worshipped 
by bowing or genufleCting, 467, note 966. See Mary, and Joseph, and 
under Worship, and Nestorius and his Heresies, where atts of worship 

are specified. 

Amanuenses, used by some Bishops, 173, note 3271. 

Ambrose of Milan; the Christian people nobly stand up for him against Arian 
violence, 16, 17; he nobly rebukes the Emperor Theodosius’ attempt to 
intrude into the place of the ministers of God, 20, note; his witness on 
the Inflesh, the Two Natures, and, incidentally and slightly only, on the 
Eucharist, 436-438. See also page lxxxvii. of the Forematter, and under 
Ephesus in this Index. If it can be proved that he approved of creature wor- 
ship he was so far condemned by the whole Church at Ephesus, note 
on pages 357, 358, 359, and page 516. See Augustine of Hippo; well 
spoken of for one utterance by an Anglican Homily, 386, note; for his 
opinion on Eternal Birth see under that expression; and compare also 
under it in the General Index to Vol. I. of Vzcaea in this Set; his refer- 
ence to John VI. on the Eucharist in a passage read in the Third World 
Synod, 438, note 800. Ambrose’s alleged idolatry on the Eucharist, and 
his alleged invocation of angels condemned by Ephesus, 514-517. 

Americans, our dangers, religious and secular; 9, Io. 

Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium in 374 and after; his witness for the Inman 
of God the Word, 448-449; his testimony for the Incarnation, for the 
offering of incense (here used for every other act of worship also,) as pre- 
rogative to God and therefore as proving that He to whom it is offered 
(the Word) is God; (compare also, under Worship, head 7, Offering In- 
cense, in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set); and for the Doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation, 448, 449. See also page lxxxvii. in the Forematter and 
under Ephesus in this Index. All the above doctrinesincluded by him in 


Index Il.—General Index. 571 


his idea of Apostolic tradition, 132, note 205. See Economic Appropri- 
ation, his testimony not in Vincent of Lerins, but in the Greek, 449, note 
878; see further on him on page 517. 

Anarchies, Ecclesiastical; must be done away, 5. 

Anastasius, the Presbyter; the beginner of the Nestorian controversy, xxi. 

Anastasius, the Presbyler; 424, note. 

Anathema, the; 180, note 402; its proper use authorized by Scripture and the 
VI. Councils, note 824, page 442; if pronounced contrary to them it 
damns the soul of the anathematizer, z67d., it is a duty binding on every 
Bishop and every local Synod to use it properly, 267d. 

Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, the Nestorian; writes against Cyril and Ortho- 
doxy, xxxvi.; denied the Inman, 116-121; held to co-bowing to Christ’s 
flesh with God the Word, 116-121; which Cyril denies, 2614, see the Greek 
there and under συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι and peta σαρκός in the Greek Index 
in this work; Cyril’s answer interpolated, 118; Cyril answers his perversion 
or misunderstanding of his (Cyril’s) words, 119, note; Venables is too 
favorable to Andrew, whom the ancients show to have been adetermined 
foe to Orthodoxy, 119, note; finally turns to it, 120; held that Cyril did not 
eo-worship Christ’s humanity with his Divinity, 352, note. See Man- 
Worship. 

Angels, their worship forbidden by Ephesus, Preface, i., ii.; (see Laodicea); 52, 
note; see /zvocation, Creature-Worship, etc. 

Anglican Church, v.; some of its clergy are idolatrous and effeminate, xliii., 
xliv. It needs a Six Synods Catechism, xlili.; is wrong and against the 
Canons of the first Four World Councils in permitting presbyters and 
laics to sit in Synods as co-ordinate with Bishops, 9-11, note 8; note 702; 
the American Branch wrecked by the Lower House in 1871; Newman and 
Pusey on that house, zbid. Its Homily against Peril of Idolatry on the 
VI. Synods, v. What it needs now, 382, 383, note. 

Anicetus, Bishop of Rome; x\v. . 

Ante-Nicene Library, xi. 

Antioch, Patriarchate of; most of its clergy Nestorian, lii., 192 and notes there. 

Antiochus, a layman, 182. 

Antitypes, the Eucharistic, 279, note. 

Antony, Bishop of Germa in Hellespontus, killed by the Macedonians, xxviii. 

Anysius, the Secretary and Reader of Firmus, Bishop of Cappadocia, 48. 

Apollinarians; some of them held to the belief that Christ’s humanity was 
transubstantiated into God, and worshipped that creature as God, 61, 
note 152; condemned by Ecumenical Councils, zb7zd.; were Co-substancers, 
61, note 154; Cyril wrote against them, zbzd.; see Co-substancers and, 
Synusiasts, and note 163, page 73; 102, note, and 214, note 543; differences 
between their two divisions, the Valentinians and the Timotheans, 104, 
note; their views as tothe flesh of Christ as told by Athanasius, Nazianzus; 
Theodoret, and Facundus, 105, note; (see 771,16 Jmimersion); 108, 109; Nes- 
torius falsely accuses Cyril of holding to Apollinarian heresy, 163, note 
3343 329, note 671; Gregory of Nazianzus and Pope Martin at the Lateran 


572 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Council of A. D. 649, on the Apollinarian heresy as to Christ’s flesh, zd7d., 
examples of differing Apollinarian and Monophysite teachings as to 
the worship of Christ’s humanity, note on pages 429-433; see note 680, 
page 362; how the Orthodox do¢trine on that point differs from them all, 
zbid.; how the two Apollinarian sects or factions, the Timotheans and 
the Valentinians, differed from each other, zd7d.,; see on the whole topic 
of Apollinarian errors of the Timothean kind and of the Valentinian, on 
their Two-Partite heresy and their Man-Worship the following notes, on 
pages 439-478; notes 802, 805, 808, 809, 810, 815, 816, 819, 821, 831, 854, 
855, 910, 9II, 913, 916, 919 (in the last five references the allusions are 
mainly to Nestorianism, but they are useful as serving to bring out the 
peculiarities of each of the mutually conflicting heresies, that of Apolli- 
naris and that of Nestorius), 930, 949 (these last two references state the 
Orthodox dodtrine), 952, 954, 957, 963, 965, 966, 972, 990, 995, 1001, 1007, 
1020; the last twelve references, in showing how the Third Council con- 
demned the Nestorian worship of Christ’s mere humanity both in the 
Eucharist and elsewhere, show also how it by necessary implication 
condemned what was in fact the Apollinarian, and Monophysite worship 
of that humanity both in the Eucharist and elsewhere; for though they 
denied that there is any humanity of Christ there or elsewhere, never- 
theless it is a fact that it does remain, and now contains the Logos in 
Heaven, where alone it is, and that the Apollinarians, in worshipping 
their whole alleged one sole Nature Christ inHeaven, 77 /act worshipped 
His two Natures there, for He has them still. In their worship of Christ’s 
Divinity alone in the Eucharist, they worshipped it where, as we see in 
note 606, pages 250-313 above, Cyril of Alexandria and the Church 
define that neither Christ’s Divinity nor his humanity is. See Monophy- 
sites, Monophysitism, Relative Worship, Worship, and Nestorius and 
his Heresies in this Index. Compare Apollinarianism in the General 
Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 

Apostles’ Creed, so called; Celestine, Bishop of Rome, refers to the old local 
Roman and Western in the shorter form of his day as ‘‘ the Creed handed 
down by the Apostles ;’’ but the Greek translator of it and the Third 
Council omit that allusion, probably because they would not give credence 
to that myth, and make the reference to be simply to ¢he Creed (τοῦ Suu 
βόλου), evidently to the only one which appears in these Acts, that of 
Niczea, 185; the Greeks have never used the local Roman and Western 
so-called Apostles’, 185, 186, note 444. See Celestine in the Index to this 
volume, and under “ Creed, the so-called Aposiles,’’ in the General Index 
to Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set. 

Apostolate, the; is the episcopate, ix.; 486, note 1042. See Aishops, and note 
702, pages 413, 414. 

Abostolic Constitutions; on the Unbloody Sacrifice, note on pages 237, 238. 

Apostolic See, and Apostolic Sees; use of those terms among the ancients, 485, 
note 1036; Romish editors wrongly substitute the singular for the plural 
in an Epistle of Augustine, to favor Rome, 2614. 


Index Il.—Generai Index. Bio 


Appeal, the, to an Ecumenical Council; xxxv. See Church Government. 


Appeal, the, to the whole Church distributed in sees; xxxvii., note; 195, note 
488. See Church Government. 


Appellate Jurisdittion,; see Africa, Britons, Nestorius, etc.; 414, note 702. See 
Church Government. See under Appellate Jurisdiétion in the General 
Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 


Appropriation ; in what sense Theodoret the Nestorian held to it, 65, note; 
See Theodoret. 


Arab, the Mohammedan, God’s curse, 525. See under Avab, Mohammed and 
Mohammedanism in this vol., and in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 


Archangels,; their worship condemned by Ephesus, Preface i., ii. 


Archbishop; to whom anciently applied, 22, note 25; in what sense Cyril of 
Alexandria is so called at Ephesus, 136, note 212; 141, note 226; 144, note 
238; how it may be translated, 313, note 619; compare note 620. 


Archons, rulers; at Chalcedon, 57, note. 

Arians, Xxviil., 6, 9, 16; their adulation of Constantius, the Arian Emperor, 19, 
20. See 376, note; alluded to by Capreolus, 485, text, and note 1036. 

Ariminum, triumph of Arianism there by the aid of the civil power, 16. 

Aristenus,; for the use of relics under Holy Tables, 249, note. 

Arius, viii., ix., xlviii., justly and infallibly condemned for his infidelity and 
creature-worship; Nestorius falsely accuses Cyril of holding to an Arian 
heresy, 164, note 334. 

Arles; triumph of Arianism there by the help of the civil power, 16. 

Arsacius, Bishop of Constantinople; his great power and exercise of jurisdiction, 
xXXX11. 

Athaliah ; a corrupter of the Mosaic Church, and an idolatrizer, 6. 

Athanasius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 326-373; rebukes the Arians 
for using flattering titles, 19, 20: his witness on the Inman, etc., 420- 
423; note 737, page 419. See also page lxxxvii. of the Forematter 
in this volume, and under Zphesus in this Index ; worshipped the Word 
inside His flesh as in atemple, 71, note; 276, note; witnesses for the doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation as necessary to guard against Man Wor- 
ship, or as he words it, ‘‘¢hat we may not become idolaters, but truly wor- 
shippers of God, because we invoke no creature, nor any common man, 
but the real Son Who, as to His Nature has come out of God, and has been 
made man, and yet is none the less Lordand God and Saviour,’ 75, note 
173; I10, note; 276, note; 420, note 740; notes 744, 747 and 748 on page 
421 ; need of acritical edition of Athanasius, 102, note; see Afollinarians. 
Spurious heretical writings falsely ascribed to Athanasius; see under 
Etutherius of Tyana, teaches on John vi. the anti-cannibal view, 274- 
276, note ; Cyril professes to follow him in all things; he does on that, 
ibid ; the value and authority of his writings and those of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, as compared with those of all other writers of centuries IV. 
and V., note on pages 358, 359; against creature service, 372, note; makes 
God the Word, our High Priest and Intercessor, 372 to 376, note. 


1: Act 1. of Ephesus. 


Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 406-426; his course on Chrysostom, 
Xvili., note; xxxii. Celestine calls him, ‘‘ the teacher of the Universal 
Church,’’ 180, 194; his witness for the Inflesh, the doctrine of Economical 
Appropriation and for the atonement by Christ’s suffering and death, 446- 
448; itis notin Vincent of Lerins, but in the Greek ; Venables on him, 
180, note 395 ; see further on him, page 517. 

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A. D. 395-430; specially invited by the Emperor 
Theodosius II. to the Third Council, 483; uses ¢ype or symbol of the Euchar- 
ist, 269, note; even after consecration, zd7d.,; if he was guilty of invoking 
creatures, he was anathematized by the Decisions of the Third Synod, 
357, 358, note; his testimony against the worship of pictures and sepul- 
chres, and, if the passage be his, for the doctrine that Christ is our Sole 
Intercessor in heaven, 369, note; compare 379, note; and 485, note 1036; 
compare page 514; commended by an Anglican Homily, 385, note; com- 
pare 383, note. 


Augustus the Emperor; would not be called Lord in the sense of God, 507. 

Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage; in connection with his Synod defends Latin 
Africa from the attempts of Bishops of Rome to get Appellate Jurisdiction 
there; see note 1024, page 483. 

Azariah, the Priest; nobly stands up against King Uzziah when he attempts 
to intrude into the place of the Priests, 20. 


iB: 


aba, Rabi; 478, note 1021; says that Nestorius’ writings exist in Syriac, zd7d. 

Balsamon’s perverston of a canon to make tt favor the use of relics, 249, note. 

Baptism, mystic rites still preserved in, among the Greeks, 239, note 600; see 
Dipping; emersion a part of it, note 872, page 448. See Zrine Immer- 
5101]. 

Barrow; his work on the Pope’s Supremacy, xliv., xlviii,; on Pope Honorius, 
tbid. 

Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in the First Cappadocia, A. D. 371-379; his witness to 
the Inman, the atonement by Christ’s death, and Economic Appropria- 
tion, 444, 445. See also page lxxxvii., in the Forematter, and under 
Ephesus in this Index; is said to have Origenized on the risen body, 514; 
is charged with worshipping Christ’s humanity, 517. 

Basil, the Deacon and Archimandrite, petitions the Emperorsagainst Nestorius 
and for an Ecumenical Council, xxxv. 

Bastlides, an idolatrizing Spanish Bishop, rejected by the Spanish Christians 
even when he was supported by the Bishopof Rome. St. Cyprian, Bishop 
of Carthage and Martyr, A. D. 248-258, backs them up against Rome in 
rejecting him, xlv. 

Bedel, Bishop; for infant Communion, 20, note; 240, note 606. 

Benson, Archbishop, his guilt in Bishop King’s case, 247, note. 

Bingham, the great writer on Christian Antiquities; his marriage uncanon- 
ical, 15, note; is too indulgent to clerical digamy, zd7d. 


Index II. —General Index. 575 


Bishops; 6,000 in the Christian World in A. D. 431, lxxvi.; 1,800 in Constantine’s 
day, note 57, page 29; they alone can sit in Councils, 8, 9, note 8; see 
Priesthood and Church Government; and 479, note 1023; see Priests and 
Priesthood; Bishops are Apostles in order, 486, note 1042 ; powers com- 
mon to them all, 489, note 1047 ; when Rome was Orthodox, (not now in 
its idolatry, etc.), its Bishop was ‘“‘first among his equals,” but in what 
sense, xli., note, and xliv.; but he was always subject to an Ecumenical 
Synod, xli.-xlv., text and notes; 39, note; he could be judged and con- 
demned by the Universal Episcopate for heresy, as Pope Honorius actu- 
ally was; see under Honorius, and note 1047, page 489. 


Boniface, Bishop of Rome ; vainly tried to get Appellate Jurisdiction over Latin 
Africa; xxxiii; see Africa, North. 

Bowing, as being the most common act of worship, is used by Cyril for all 
a@ts of worship, 215, note 548; 331, notes 676, 677; see Bowing in 
the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. Bowing mentioned, 
notatallas an at of worship, but of mere human love and respect, 
483, note 1026. Other acts of worship besides bowing specified, note 
677, page 331; under Nestorius and his Heresies, and under Worship; 
all acts of worship forbidden to any but God, and all Relative Worship 
prohibited, z67d.; see Relative Worship, and Man Worship, and In- 
vocation, and Image Worship, and Relic Worship; bowing and every 
other act of religious worship prerogative to God alone, 226, note 582. 


Bright, Prof.; references to his writings on Cyril and Nestorius, xxxvii. and 
Ixvi 

Bringer Forth of God; in Greek, Θεοτόκος; Mother of God a mistranslation of 
Θεοτόκος, i., vi.; see Mary, Mother of God, and Θεοτόκος in the Greek In- 
dex, Preface i. Misconceptions of Romanists and Protestants on it, Pre- 
face, i., ii., vi.; the expression Bringer Forth of God (Θεοτόκος) opposed by 
Nestorius and the Nestorians, xx., xxi.,and in his Ecumenically con- 
demned Epistle to Cyril, 154-166; Hellanicus of Rhodes anathematizes 
him who receives it not, 168; so does Prothymius of Comana, 171; it 
guards the doctrine of the Inman and against Man-Worship, 286-308, 
text; and note 641, page 318; denied by Nestorius, who held to both those 
errors, 2bid.,; the fact of its guarding against Man-Worship not brought out 
much by Hefele, the Romanist, 7jz7d. see on the expression, note 657, 
page 320; J. H. Newman’s mistranslation of Θεοτόκος: see note 741, page 
420, and under Newman. Gregory of Nazianzus writes, ‘‘/f any one does 
not admit Mary to have been Bringer Forth of God, he ts an alien to the 
Divinity,” 440, text; why and how, 440, note 809; see Bringer Forth of 
God in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 


British Church, the; not originally subject to Rome, xxxiii. 


: 


Caligula, the Roman Emperor; blasphemously arrogates to himself God’s name, 
509. 


576 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Calvin; not so strong against Creature Worship as Cyril and the Third Ecu- 
menical Council, Preface, page i.; held, with the VI. Ecumenical Coun- 
cils, and the English Reformers, that it is the duty of the civil magistrate, 
to suppress all creature invocation, and image worship, and all other 
heresies condemned in the said VI. Synods, xxix., note ‘‘a;’’ the pious 
Reforming and Restoring Kings of the Old Testament, Josiah, Hezekiah, 
etc., suppressed all idolatry and all creature worship, zzd. 


Candidian, Count, 1., 16, 42, 43, 58, note. The Emperor, a mere layman, 
wished to boss the decisions of the Council by him, a mere layman, 505. 


Cannibalism on the Eucharist; see Eucharist and Cyril, and 263, note; Cyril 
calls it ‘‘a monstrosity,’ thid., and subnote ‘‘h#hk’’ there. Cardinal du 
Perron termed ‘‘transubstantiation ‘‘ a Monster,’’ or ‘a Monstrosity,” 
263, subnote ““λ1λ," Cyril and the Orthodox against Cannibalism and 
against the worship of Christ’s Divinity or humanity in the Eucharist, 
473, note 1001. See Hucharist, and note 1007, page 474; a phrase in the 
Anglican Catechism needs to be corrected by the utterances of Cyril and 
of the Third Ecumenical Synod, zdzd.; Nestorius’ Blasphemy 78 is for 
Cannibalism, text of pages 472, 473 and 474. Greek of it therein note 
1007; Cyril on it; see references, 26zd., and note I000, on page 473. See 
in the Greek Index under ἀνθρωποφαγία: and page 284, note; 285, note; 
293, note, and note 606, passim. 


Canon, in what sense sometimes used, 142, note 227; 153, note 284. 

Canons of the Church, authoritative, 487, 504; the Bishops at Ephesus acted in 
accordance with them, 486, note 1042; Hefele’s notion as to what Canon 
is referred to in its Sentence of Deposition on Nestorius, 487, note 1044. 
See ‘‘ Cazons’’ in the General Index to Vol. I. of Wicaea. 


Canon Law, the Roman, specimens of its blasphemy, 510; some of its materials 
spurious, 512. See ‘“‘ Rome’’ in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea 
in this Set. 


Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage in A. D. 431; his Epistle to the Council of Eph- 
esus, 481-486; its tenor, page lxxxvili. of the Forematter, and under ZpA- 
esus in this Index. See Capreolus in List I. of Bishops in Index I., and 
in note 1024, page 483; his Letter put into the A¢ts at the suggestion of 
Cyril, 486, note 1040; why? zdzd. 

Carthage; see Councils of Carthage, Africa, and Chrystal, and Celestine, and 
Leo I. and Augustine, and note 1024, page 483. The jurisdiction of Car- 
thage, 484, note 1031, and Carthage in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
Nicaea in this Set. 


Catholic; sense and use of the term, 191, note 475; 194, text, and note 487; Cath- 
oltc in the sense of Orthodox, 195, text, and note 489; pages 210-212, note 
533. The ancient Easterns did not use commonly Catholic of single 
andividuals, but of the Church, page 211, note 533. 

Catholically, in the sense of Orthodoxly, 191, note 475. 

Cave; Christ, according to Gregory of Nyssa, was laidin acave, note 842, page 
446 ; see Gregory of Nyssa. 


Index II.—General Index. 577 


ee SS ET a i ne 


Celestine, Bishop of Rome; wrongly seeks to gain Appellate Jurisdiction in 
Latin Africa, xxxiii.; fails to get it, 2béd.; his attempt condemned by the 
Third Synod of the Christian World, xlix.; his proper jurisdiction, 22; his 
course in the Nestorian controversy, xxxvi., xxxvili.; his Epistle to Nes- 
torius, 179-203; it is epitomized under Ephesus; why we translate from the 
Greek; it is Synodical, 179, notes 390, 391, 392, 393, 3953 187, note 445; 
its date, 203, note 517; 209, note 532; its influence as an utterance of the 
first See and of a Western Synod over the Ecumenical Council, 487, note 
1045; Celestine weaves into his Letter to Nestorius his belief in the local, 
the peculiarly Western myth, that the Apostles made a Creed, and that it 
is the local Roman one of his own day; the Bishops of the Council refuse 
to approve it and so change that part of the Letter as to make it refer to 
the Nicene Creed, 185, note 444; lessons to us from this, tbid.; another 
change made in translation into Greek, 202, note 508; Xystus, Bishop of 
Rome, held to the same myth on the so-called Apostles’ Creed, as Celestine, 
his predecessor, 185, note 444; the Easterns did not, 267d.,; sample of their 
language in Acacius of Melitine, who makes Nestorius to err not against the 
Roman local Creed, but against the Nicene, 767d. ; see Apostles’ Creed, Celes- 
tine’s faulty language on the worship of relics condemned in effect by the 
decisions of the Third Council against all creature worship, 186, note 444; 
his tyrannous and usurping attempt to procure Appellate Jurisdiction in 
Latin Africa also condemned by it, zjéd. The work of exposing and 
condemning Nestorius and his heresies was done by the whole Church 
and not by Celestine alone, 489, note 1047, and 187, note 445; he had no 
canonical jurisdiction outside of Italy, 187, note 445; he merely acted as 
the first Bishop of the Church, the first among his equals, 196, note 494; 
197, note 497; his course on the Nestorian Controversy, note 502, on 
pages 197-201; inferior to Cyril as a theologian, he nevertheless deserves 
credit for that course, 77d.; noble stand of Augustine of Hippo and the 
Latin Africans against his attempt to get Appellate Jurisdiction over them, 
ibid., page 201. Celestine writes to the clergy of Constantinople and to 

, all, 199, note; his sentence and that of his local Council on Nestorius and 
his heresies, 200-203; 187, note 445; 197, notes 497 and 502; see more under 
Celestine in the list of Bishops; his wrong attempt to gain Appellate Juris- 
diGtion over Latin Africa, 427, 428, note; see also Africa and Rome. 

‘Celestius, the heretic; 179, text. 


Chalcedon, Council of; ix. See also Council, the Fourth. See Chalcedon in 
Vol. I. of Nicaea, General Index. 


Chorepiscopus,; 495, text, and note 1105. 


Christ; our Sole High Priest, Ixvii.; Character of Hits Father’s Substance, 247, 
text. God the Word is the High Priest and Apostle of our Profession, 
and our Sole Mediator, Who, however, does the human things such as 
suffering and dying by His humanity, pages 255-267, text, and 220-255, 
text. In prayer, as God the Word, and therefore as omniscient and omni- 
present, He hears our prayers and searches the hearts of tens of millions 
of invokers at the same moment, their motives, their sincerity or insin- 


578 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


cerity, and decides on the wisdom or unwisdom of each one of those 
prayers, and the needs of the petitioners, and then by the mind and lips 
of His humanity, guided by His infallible knowledge and wisdom as God. 
the Word, He prays for us to His Father, note 621, pages 313-316; St. 
Cyril on those themes, 377, note; 378, note; 379, note; he sets forth the 
soleness of Christ’s one sacrifice, the Divinity of the Offerer, and teaches 
that God the Word is our High Priest, and that if a mere man were, as 
the Nestorians contended, the result would be 7etradism and Creature 
Worship, 378, note. Nestorius made a mere creature our Redeemer and 
Atoner, 471, note 995. The Church of England Homily on the Nativity 
agrees, so far as it goes, with Cyril’s and the Church’s do¢trine that God 
the Word is our High Priest, who does the human things by His human- 
ity, 389, 390, note; so does its Article XXXI., 390, note; the true do¢trine 
on those themes stated, note on pages 391-393; different communions on 
it, the Greek, the Latin, the Monophysites, the Nestorians, the Anglicans, 
the Reformed of the Continent, 393-396, note; the Socinians, 396-401; 
Peter Lombard on, 401; Lutheran Formularies on, 402-405; grievous 
errors in them, zd7d.; pagan teachings of the Schwenkfelders on, 405; 
new and terrible paganism in the Anglican Communion, in effect against 
the doctrine of the Soleness of Christ’s High Priesthood, 406. Christ’s 
Mediation as our High Priest and Sole Intercessor in Heaven is God. 
authorized, and no other is, 381, note; Scripture on, 267d. Absurdity and 
blasphemy and paganism of Nestorius’ doctrine that a mere creature is. 
our Atoner and Saviour, and our Intercessor above, 471, note. For fuller 
explanation on this whole topic, I take the liberty here of referring to. 
places in St. Cyril’s other writings. For example, Cyril, asin Pusey’s 
English translation of his writings ox the Incarnation against Nestorius, 
where he treats on John xvii., 5, and the context, shows that Christ’s 
great High Priestly and Intercessory and Mediatorial Prayer for his dis. 
ciples in the seventeenth chapter of that Gospel was offered by God the 
Word Himself within His humanity, as indeed is abundantly clear from 
its fifth verse, “ dnd now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own 
self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was,’’ for it 
was God the Word’s Divinity, not at all his humanity, which had glory 
with the Father before the world was. See Pusey’s translation of ‘‘S. 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius,’? on John 
XVii., 5, and on the context, pages 160, 161, 162, 272, 273, 308, 309, 310. 
To the same effect see Cyril on John xvii., 4, 5., and the context, the 
Oxford translation, Vol. II., pages 491-524, and especially page 496, 
where Cyril says that God in that prayer was ‘‘ speaking the words’? of 
John xvii., 4, ‘‘as Man,’’ and on page 497, speaking of God the Word, 
he writes that ‘‘He prays therefore [in John xvii., 4, 5], even within flesh 
(καὶ μετὰ σαρκός) for the recovery of his own glory. And [yet] He is 
not wholly bereft of His own glory [when he so speaks] ὃ * * forthe 
Word, being very God, was never without His own dignities,’’ [Pusey’s 
Cyril, the Greek, vi., 677]. And on John xxii., 9-11, Cyril writes of 


Index Il.—General Index. 579 


God the Word, ‘‘Moreover, He, the Reconciler of God and men 
and Mediator between them, and our truly great and all-holy 
High Priest, mediates for us as man, and by His prayers (Acraic) he 
thoroughly propitiates the judgment of His own Father, sacrificing him- 
self for us. For He Himself is the Sacrifice, and He Himself is the Priest, 
He Himself is the Mediator, He Himself the all-spotless victim, ‘the Lamb 
of God that taketh away the sin of the world’ * * * The High Priest and 
at tze same time Mediator Anointed, Who is above the types and figures 
ofthe Law, having appeared in the last times asks [blessings] as Man for 
‘us, and as God is co-eager with the God and Father in distributing the 
good things to those who are worthy. Paul showed us a most clear 
example of this when he said, Grace be to you and peace from God our 
Father and from the Lord Jesus Anointed [II. Cor. i, 2] Therefore, 
He Who asks as Man, on the other hand distributes to us as God. For 
being a holy High Priest,” etc. It is therefore not one nature only, that 
is a mere creature, Christ’s humanity, that is our High Priest and Inter- 
cessor, as Nestorius would have it, but God the Word within His human- 
ity and speaking and acting by it, doing the divinethings by His Divinity 
and the human things by His humanity. This it is, the combination of 
the All-knowing, everywhere present God the Word, with that humanity 
which can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, which makes 
the Redeemer the High Priest and Intercessor Whom we need, which con- 
stitutes the uniqueness of His fitness, andshows that no mere creature, be 
it the Virgin Mary or any apostle, martyr, archangel, angel, or any 
other mere finite creature, can share His prerogative of being our 
Sole Mediator, that is our Sole Intercessor in heaven. Paul in 
Hebrews iv., 12-16, dwells with joy and comfort on the fact that 
“the Word of God’’(6 Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ), to whose sight every creature ts 
mantfest ( Heb. iv., 13),and Who as Man can be éZouched with the feeling 
of our infirmities (Heb. iv., 15), isour great High Priest (Heb. ii., 1). 
Anent this topic see Cyril’s most remarkable and excellent explanation 
of Christ’s words ‘‘A/y God, my God, why forsookest thou me?’ ( Matt. 

xxvii., 26) in the Oxford translation of his writings on the Jncarnation 
against Nestorius, 287-294. Cyril teaches that God the Word dows, that. 
is, worships, as Man, but is bowed to, that is, 7s worshipped, as God. 

Compare Cyril’s Scholia, section xxxvi., page 570, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pu- 

sey’s Cyril: ‘‘He [God the Word] boweth as having taken the nature 

that boweth,; and, on the other hand, the Same [ Word 7 ts bowed to as be- 
ing above the nature which bows, inasmuch as He [the Word ] ἐς deemed 
God. But nevertheless the bow [that is, ‘‘the worship’’| must not 
be separated unto a Man by himself and unto God by Himself; nor, more- 
over, do we say that the Natures are parted, and that a Man has been 

conjoined to God, so to speak, in an equality of dignity, and that he ts to 
be bowed to with Him [God the Word], for that thing would be full of 
SUPREMEST IMPIETY; but that only One ts to be bowed to, [that is} 

the Word of God, Who has put on a Man and has taken flesh; 


580 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


and at the same time we are to believe that the body united to him ts 
animated by a rational soul like ours.’’ Were the worship seems to be 
given to the Word only, and so the context seems to show that St. Cyril 
taught. Christ worships as Man, and is worshipped as God, 378, note. 
Cyril, in the note on pages 79, 80, denies worship to Christ's 
humanity and makes it prerogative to Divinity alone, where Cyril 
rebukes Nestorius for his worship of Christ’s humanity as fol- 
lows: ‘‘Why, tell me, dost thou exceedingly insult the flesh of God, 
even indeed [by] not refusing to bow to it; whereas TO BE BOWED TO 
BEFITS AND IS DUE TO THE DIVINE AND INEFFABLE NATURE ALONE.”’ 
On page 225, note, Cyril proves that the Word must be God because he is 
bowed to by the angels in Hebrews i., 6, which implies that he believed 
all religious bowing to be prerogative to God alone, which indeed he then 
asserts as follows: ‘‘H¥e [God the Word] zs * * * bowed to by the holy 
angels, and that too when the right to be bowed to belongs to and befits 
God alone,’ and on page 360, note, Cyril writes, “But uo one 15 ignorant 
that, BY THE SCRIPTURE, WORSHIP IS TO BE GIVEN To NO NATURE AT 
ALL EXCEPT THAT OF Gop.’’ And again he says, ‘‘ THERE 15 [but] ONE 
NATURE OF THE DEITY, WHICH ALONE OUGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED.”’ 
See further the note on pages 338, 339, and indeed all of notes 183, 580- 
583 inclusive, and notes 676, 677, 678, 679 and 680. So teaches Athan- 
asius on pages 98-Io1, note. Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council curses every one who defends Theodore of Mopsuestia’s relative 
worship of Christ’s mere humanity by teaching that ‘“‘just like an Em- 
peror’s image (εἰκόνος) that mere created humanity ‘‘zs 20 be bowed 
to with reference to the Person of God the Word.’’ God the 
Word is our Reconciler and Sacrifice, 255-267, text; but did not 
offer for himself, for he was sinless, 265-267, text; compare page 471, 
note 995; is God by nature, 279; see Westorius and his Heresies, Heresy 1, 
and the rest; God the Word was brought forth in flesh of the Virgin, 286- 
317; decides through an Ecumenical Council, 487, 488; has two Natures, 
57, note; and two wills, 70 and 71, note; strong texts for His Divinity 
blurred in the English New Testament, notes 165, 167, page 73; as Man 
He worships; as God He receives worship, 127; if He were not God He 
could not hear or answer prayer, 128; see Hutherius of Tyana, and Theo- 
doret of Cyrus; abitter Nestorian assails the doctrine of St. Cyril approved 
by Ephesus that God the Word is our Mediator, 124-128, note; logic and 
necessity of the sound dodtrine, zd7d.; see under Economic Appropria- 
tion, and under Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 3; Amphilochius 
includes all the above sound dodtrines in the Apostolic Tradition, 132, 
note, 205; Cyril makes them to be part of the Faith, 133, note 208; see 
Faith. In what sense the Logos is everywhere, and unquantitied and 
unsized, 215, notes 544, 545 and 546; Christ was anointed as Man, but 
that anointing is Economically ascribed to God the Word, 216, note 551; 
Economic Appropriation is to avoid the Nestorian Man-Worship, 2d7d.; 
the Law of Moses given through the Logos, according to Cyril, 220, note 


“τ ΣΝ 581 


ΝΞ Ἂ ΕΞ ΞΘ ΞΞεΗεηῊσ -ϑ----Ξ-Ξ --  ππππππππωεἕεΨροΨὌπεοΕοῆΨέαύθσσπππῇπῇπρ΄ρῦξο'οὲὋΡ̓ἔ[οὺ SSS 


579; Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Faustin, and primitive Fathers held 
that wherever in the Old Testament worship is given to a seeming crea- 
ture, that person was really the Logos, 7d7d.,; this do¢trine necessary to 
guard against creature worship, z4id. See MWan- Worship, See Saints, 
worship of. St. Cyril of Alexandria uses Πρόσωπον, that is, Person, and 
ὝὙπόστασις, Subsistence, Being, for God the Word alone, Who, however, has 
put on flesh, 313, note 616; compare 328, note 671, end; ‘‘ Zhe Word of 
God * * * Anointed as Man after the flesh, and anointing Divinely 
with Fis own Spirit them that believe on Him,”’ 328, note 671. See 
Person. By ‘‘one infleshed Nature of God the Word” and by the Person 
ofthe Son and by His Yypostasis Cyrilseems to mean God the Word only, 
Who, however, has put on flesh, 313, note 616, and 329, note 671, end; what- 
ever Christ did “‘was done by the Father, through the Son, by the SPF 
316, note 621; that does away with getting any answer to prayer through 
the Virgin Mary orany other mere creature, 7d7d.; errors of the Timothe- 
ans, that is, theSynusiasts, that is, the Co-substancers, on the Incarnation 
and as to Christ’s humanity, note 773; see Zimotheans and Apollinarians. 
The Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematizes the blasphemy of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia that his mere human Christ ‘‘was troubled by the passions 
of the soul and the lusts of the flesh, and was little by little parted from 
the things which are more evil, and so was made better by progress in 
works, and by his conduct became blameless; that as a mere man 
he was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost, and by his baptism received the grace of the Holy 
Spirit, and was deemed worthy of the adoption to Sonship, and just like 
an Emperor’s image (εἰκόνος), he is to be worshipped with reference to the 
Person of God the Word, and that after his resurre@tion he became im- 
mutable in his thoughts and wholly sinless,” 423, note; compare notes 976, 
977. Gregory of Nazianzus long before anathematized the view that 
Christ was adopted at his baptism, as above, and also the view that he 
was adopted after his resurrection, 443, 444, text, and note 827; page 469, 
notes 976 and 977, and notes 986, 990. See under Adoption, and 447, 
note 856; see Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. See ‘‘Christ” 
in the General Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set. 


Chrysostom, John, studied under Diodore of Tarsus, xvi., text and note; and 
xix.; against the worshipping of angels, xvii.; the discussion as to putting 
his name intothe diptychs, xviii., text, and note; intercession of saints as- 
cribed to him, xviii.; uses suspicious language onthe Eucharist, xix.; for 
fasting communion; parts of Egypt otherwise, 7b7d.; his great power as 
Bishop of Constantinople and Court Patriarch, xxxii., xxxiii., xxxiv. 
See “Chrysostom”? in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 


Chrystal’s Articles on the struggle of Rome to acquire Appellate Jurisdiction 
over Latin Africa, xxxiii.; 39, note 94; 380, note; 427, note. 

Church, the Anglican; See Anglican Church; its formularies favor the VI. 
Synods, v. See Anglican Communion and Church of England in Vol. 
I. of Vicaea in this Set. 


582 “Ad oh, s6f EEPRESUS. 


nanan 


Church, the Greek; nominally still receives the VI. Synods; but not in practice 
in some things; misconception among the more ignorant of its people 
that Ephesus favored the worship of Mary, vi.; was never subjugated by 
Rome, 22, note 26; see ‘‘Greek Church”? in the General Index to Vol. 1. 
of Nicaea in this Set. 


Church, the Mosaic; 6. 


Church, the Roman; nominally receives the VI. World Councils, but in fact 
rejects some of their decisions, v., vi.; see ‘‘Latin Church’ in the 
General Index to Vol. I. of icaea in this set. 

Church Government, the Patriarch, the Exarch, the Metropolitan, the Primate 
and the Suffragan, the Patriarchate, the Diocese, the Province, and the 
Parish or Paroecia, 413, note, and note 1023; the Synod of the Patriarch- 
ate, that of the Diocese, and that of the Province, zd7d.; Bishops alone 
may sit in Synods, 413, note; they are the teaching part of the Church; 
Ecumenical Canons on such themes, zdid.; power of Constantinople in 
the East, 413 and 414, note; opposition of Rome, zd7d.,; presbyters never 
sat as co-ordinate with Bishops as in the Anglo-American communion 
now; its wreck by making them co-ordinate, 413, 414, note; its present 
need in Church government, z6zd.; a National Council, 414, note; appeals; 
1, to a National Council; 2, to the Universal Church distributed in sees; 
and 3, to an Ecumenical Synod, zdid.; what of them are now in abeyance, 
ibid.; an account of the greater Metropolitical or Patriarchal sees, in 
ancient times, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome; need 
of one or more Patriarchs in each nation; no race or nation should be 
subject to a foreign patriarch; how this rule has come to be violated, note 
1023, pages 479-483; great sway and power of the Patriarch of Constan- 
tinople in the Middle Ages, 7b7d., page 483; ancient use of Parish and 
Diocese, 497, note 1114; see MWetropolitans, Exarch, etc. 

Churches not commonly named after saints nor dedicated to them anciently, 21, 
note 22. 

Civil rulers; their duty to protect and support the Church of the Six Councils 
and to suppress error and immorality, xxix., note ‘‘a;’’ Universal Church 
ou, xxix., note ‘‘a,’’ pages 33-41, note 86; see Sexate, Archons; and 123, 
note; their authority derived not from the people but from God; note “‘y”’ 
on page 506; duty of all Christians to choose an Orthodox ruler where 
they can, 506. 

Cledonius,; 439, notes 802, 803. 

Clement of Alexandria; 269, note; on God the Word as our Mediator, Inter- 
cessor, and High Priest, and as ‘“‘the Expiator of Sin,’’ 370, note; 371, 
note. 

Clerics, Christian; see Priesthood. 

Comarius, Cyril’s representative; Ixxvi., 365. 

Communicatio Idiomatum; see Communication of Properties. 

Communication of the Properties of Christ’s Two Natures to each other; 
a heresy, xxvi., xxvii, note “5. Hefele’s blunder on, zd7d.; Luth- 
erans favor the error; the Reformed nearer Ephesus in that matter; some 


lndex IIl.—General Index. 583 


of the Latins against it; how it differs from the Orthodox doctrine of 
Economic Appropriation, 75, note, and note ‘‘s,’’ pages xxvi-xxvili. See 
in Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set, in the General Index under ‘‘Communt- 
cation of the Properties” and ‘‘Economic Appropriation,’’.and Economic 
Appropriation in this Index. 

Communion Tables; not to be worshipped, i., ii., 52, note. 

Concomitance, the Eucharistic; 525-528; what the do¢trine is, zd7d., its absurd 
and blasphemous sequences, z7d., is part of the doctrine of the Roman 
Transubstantiation and also of that of the Greek, and of Two Nature Con- 
substantiation, Note E., pages 517-528; Cyril, whose teachings on the 
Eucharist were approved by the whole Church at Ephesus, condemns it, 
ibid. 

Conjunction, see Relative Conjunction. 

Constantine the Great, Emperor, a nursing father to the Church, how, 6; takes 
away churches from creature servers and gives them to the Orthodox, 6; 
orders fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures to be written for the Churches 
of Constantinople, note 880, page 449. 

Constantine and his sons, 20, note; blasphemous titles given to them, 20, note. 

Constantinople, Second Ecumenical Synod, 6; see Council, the Second E-cumen- 
ical, 

Constantinople, the Patriarchs of; their power, xxxiii., xxxiv.; loss by idolatry, 
note 57, pages 29, 30; sinful titles given to, 38, note 91; their vast juris- 
diction and great power in the middle ages, 483, note 1023. 

Constantius, the Arian Emperor, 19, 20; the Arians sycophantically call him 
‘« ER ternal Emperor!” but deny that the Son of God ts everlasting, tbid. 

Consubstantiation; three kinds of it, which contradict each other, 312, 313, 
note; condemned by the Third Council of the Christian world, and the 
Orthodox doctrine of St. Cyril approved by it, xxxix., and 312, 313, note. 

Copts; vi.; see Senutt, and Victor the Archimandrite, \xxv. 

Co-substancers,; their distinguishing tenet, 61, notes 152, 154; see Apollinarians 
and Synusiasts; 102, note; 104, note; 164, note 338; Cyril against them, 
214, note 543. See Valentinian heretics. 

Councils, the VI. Ecumenical; see Ecumenical, and Ephesus, and note 606, often, 
note 183, etc.; and see especially Councils, the VI. Ecumenical, in Vol. 
I. of Nicaea, General Index. 

Council, the First Ecumenical, Nicaea, A. D. 325; ix.; see Micaea, A. D. 325, 
and Lcumenical Councils, x\viii.; it decided infallibly and forever against 
the creature-worshipping Arius, and that question cannot be reopened 
again, ix. and xlviii.; in the General Index to Vol. I. of Wicaea, see 
Nicaea, A. D. 325, and Creed of the First Ecumenical Council and Six 
Ecumenical Synods, and Councils, the Six. 

Council, the Second Ecumenical; that is I. Constantinople, A. D. 381; ix. and 
6; and see Constantinople, Second Ecumenical Council and Ecumenical 
Councils; its canons II., III. and VI., see page xxxiii.; it infallibly con. 
demned Macedonianism and its creature-worship, ix., xlviii.; neither it 
or its Creed mentioned in the Acts of the Third Synod, note 151, page 60; 
Rome opposed at first its Canon III.; its Canons V., VI. and VII. denied 


584 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


to be its by some, zd7d., its Creed quoted, ‘“‘came out of the Father before 
all the Worlds,” 69, note; how the Fourth Council speaks of its Creed, 
and perhaps also of that of Nicaea, 439, note. See /az¢h in this Index. 
In the General Index to Vol. I. of Wicaea, see 1. Constantinople; Constan- 
tincpolitan Creed; Constantinople, the Second Council of; and Creed of 
the Second Ecumenical Synod; Councils, the Six; and Six Ecumenical 
Synods. 

Council, the Third Ecumenical; A. D. 431; see Ephesus and Ecumenical 
Councils, xlix.,and 114, note. It tells us exactly what Nestorius’ heresies 
were, 77d. In the General Index to Vol. I. of /Vicaea in this Set see 
Ephesus, the “Third Ecumenical Council,” and ‘‘ Third Ecumenical 
Synod,” and ‘Six Ecumenical Synods.’’ 

Council, the Fourth Ecumenical, held at Chalcedon, A. D. 451; see Chalcedon and 
Ecumenical Councils; condemned Eutyches, ix., xlix.; its canon xxviii. ; 
Cyril’s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius quoted in, 55, note; condemns mode 
physitism, 72, note; and Nestorianism, 114, note; bases the privileges of the 
Bishop of Rome on the ground of its being the capital of the Empire, and 
passes its canon xxviii. against the wishes of Rome’s legates and main- 
tains it to this hour; note on pages 427, 428. Compare in the General 
Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, under ‘‘Fourth Ecumenical Synod,’’ and 
“Councils, the Six,” and ‘Six Ecumenical Synods.”’ 

Council, the Fifth Ecumenical; that is, 11. Constantinople, A. D. 553; see 
77. Constantinople and Ecumenical Councils, ix., xviii., xlix.; decided 
infallibly against the III. Chapters, etc., condemned all creature service 
and Theodore and his heresies, lii.; 22, note 22; condemns Nestorian 
error on the Union, 70, note; condemns Monophysitism, 72, note; its An- 
athema IX., 75, note; and 22, note 22; condemns, impliedly, all worship 
of creatures, and Communication of Properties; its XIV. Anathemas 
against Nestorius’ heresies, definitely and infallibly, 114, note; its Anath- 
ema XI., page 513, condemns Eutychianism. Compare in the General 
Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, ‘‘Fifth Ecumenical Synod,” and ‘Councils, 
the Six,” and “Sta Ecumenical Synods.’’ 

Council, the Sixth Ecumenical; that is, III. Constantinople, A. D. 680; see 
Ecumenscal Councils, infallibly condemned Pope Honorius; anarchical 
to deny it, ix.; on the two wills of Christ, 70, 71, note; condemns Mono- 
thelism, 72, note. Compare in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
Ephesus, ‘Sixth Ecumenical Synod,’ Councils, the Six,” “Six Ecumen- 
ical Synods’’ and ‘‘ffonorius” and ‘‘Vigilius.”’ 

Council, a future Seventh; see Seventh Ecumenical Synod, and 5, 6; 35, note 
88; 483, note 1,024; it is to be desired to do away allinvocation of any but 
God, all idolatry, all Host Worship, and all other errors, 5, 6, note; will 
never come till there shall be an episcopate to hold it which shall be free) 
from those idolatries, page 35, note 88; page 483, note 1024; it must define 
in accordance with the truths defined by the Six Synods already held, 
for truth cannot contradict itself, zbzd. 

Council of Alexandria, in A. D. 430; 179, note 391; 205, summary; 213, text, 
and note 538; 362, 363, text; 414, note 703. 


Index IIl.—General Index. 585 


ne 


Council of Ariminum, 16; triumph of Arianism at, by means of the secular 
power, 2614. 

Council of Arles; 16; triumph of Arianism at, by means of the secular power, 
16. 

Councils of Carthage; against the claim of Rome to Appellate Jurisdiction in 
Latin Africa, 39, note; their contention supported by Ephesus, xlix. 
See Africa. See Carthage in the General Index to Vol. I. of Wicaea. 

Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448; against Eutyches, 55, note. 


Council of Constantinople, A. D. 754; if it approved the invocation of creatures 
it was opposed to the VI. Ecumenical Synods, 52, note; 357-360, note. 
See under Ephesus and Ecumenical Councils. 

Council of the Diocese; 413, note 702; 479, note 1023. 

Council of Elvira in Spain, see Elvira. 

Council of Ephesus of A. D. 449, the Robbers’ Synod; 55, note. 

Council of Jerusalem, A. D. 1672; see Jerusalem. 

Council of Laodicea; see Laodicea. 

Council of the Lateran, A. Ὁ. 649; see Apollinarians. 

Council of the Lateran, the Fourth, A. D. 1215; defines against the Eucharistic 
dogtrine of the Third Ecumenical Synod, 473, note 1000. 


Councils, National; see under Church Government, and 413, note 702; and 479, 
note 1023. 

Council of Nicaea (local), in A. Ὁ. 787; see ‘“‘Vicaea, the idolatrous conventicle 
ὍΣ 

Council of the Patriarchate, 413, note 702, and 479, note 1023. 

Council of the Province; 413, note 702, and 479, note 1023. 

Councilof Rome, A. D. 430. See Rome, Council. 

Council of Toledo, the Third, in 589; orders the Creed of the Second Ecumen- 
ical Synod to be recited in Spain every Lord’s Day and at every Euchar- 
ist, 51, note; that was the custom then in the Oriental Churches, zdzd. 


Council of Trent, A. D. 1543-1563; opposes the doctrine of the Third Ecumenical 
Synod on the Lord’s Supper, 473, note 1000; and pages 522, 523; see 
Eucharist; it opposes the decisions of Ephesus against invoking and 
otherwise worshipping creatures, and against all image worship and 
relic worship, iv. 

Country Bishop; note 1105, page 495. See also Chorepiscopus, and note 1112, 
page 496. 

Cranmer; Preface, i., ii.; and page 115, Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set. 

Creature-Worship,; forbidden, Preface, i-iv. See Man-Worship, Eucharist, and 
Invocation, Arius’, viii.; Macedonius’, viii.; Nestorius’, ix.; Theodoret’s, 
ix.; all creature-worship condemned by the Holy Ghost, speaking 
through the Third Ecumenical Council, xxxix. and 52, note; James II. 
tried to corrupt England with it, 18; creature-worship, note on pages 5, 
6, 7, 8 and g; 41, note 102; God's curses for creature-worship on the Jews 
and the Israelites, on the Nestorians, the Greeks and the Latins, and the 
Monophysites, 175, note 388; 485, note 1037. 

Creed, the so-called Apostles’; see Apostles’ Creed and Faith in this Index; and 


586 Act I. of Ephesus. 


in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, under ‘‘Creed, the so-called 
Apostles.” 

Creed, the Constantinopolitan, see under Council, the Second, and Fazth in this 
Index, and Council of Toledo; and in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
Nicaea, under ‘‘ Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod.” 

Creed, the Nicene; see under Nicaea and under Fazth in this Index, Council of 
Toledo, and in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, ‘‘Creed of the 
First Ecumenical Council.’’ 

Cross, the; (the sign of ?), 201, note 503. 

Cross Worship; should be done away, 5; condemned by Ephesus, Preface, i. 

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage A. D. 248-258, and Martyr; his witness on the 
Inman, the Two Natures, and Economic Appropriation, 235. See also 
page Ixxxvii. in the Forematter, and under Aphesus in this Index; he 
backs Spaniards against Rome, xlv.; his jurisdiction and power, note 
1023, pages 479-483; his error that saints above pray for us condemned by 
Ephesus as an intrusion on the prerogative intercession of Christ there, 
516. See Fathers in this Index and in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
Nicaea in this Set, and under “‘Councils, the Six Ecumentcal,’’ there. 

Cyril of Alexandria; his Letter to the Monks of Egypt, xxxi., xxxv. See in 
the notes to this work, his Commentary on Matthew, subnote ‘‘rr,”’ 
pages 265-267; his Commentary on Luke, 256, note, and other places in 
this volume; the Syriac of, subnote ‘‘77,’’ pages 265-267. Its lesson to us 
not to accept rashly as Cyril’s what is not his. Cyril of Alexandria’s 
Commentary on John, 261, subnote, and again and again in note 606, 
pages 240-313; his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemtes of Nes- 
torius, xxvi., xxxi., xxxv., li., 113, 114; 162, note 330; see in the notes 
to this work often; his Eaplanation of the XII. Chapters spoken at 
Ephesus, 267, note; his Three Epistles to Nestorius, xxxv., xxxvi., li., 
31, note 61; 55, note: see in the notes to this work often. His Shorter 
Epistle, (the second of the three), read and approved by vote in the Third 
World Council, 52-154; two of them mentioned by Celestine, 188; Cyril’s 
Shorter Epistle, on what themes it speaks,’ 53, note 142; is Ecumenically 
approved; which is its most correct and authoritative text, note on pages 
54-56; authority of the Epistle, 56-58, notes 142 and 143; variations in 
Greek readings in it, 56, note; the Latin translation, 59, note; teaches the 
tenet of the two Natures, 73, note 163; condemns Man-Worship, 108, note; 
what it approves and what it condemns, 133, note 208; explains the 
Nicene Creed, 133, note 208; 143, note 233; mentioned by Firmus of 
Ceesarea as authoritative, 166, note; its sezse Scriptural, though part of its 
language be not in Holy Writ, 167, note 351. Cyril’s Longer Epistle, 
which curses deniers of the Inman, was adopted by the whole Church at 
Ephesus, 67, note; it condemns the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity, 
108, note; it teaches that God the Word is our Mediator and High Priest, 
and the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, and condemns Nestorius’ 
errors on the Eucharist, etc., 214-268; most ofits teachings against creature- 
worship and Host-Worship and Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation 
restored by the English Reformers of blessed memory, 204, note; no at- 


Index II.—General Index. 587 


ππ ππΠ a 


tempts of Rome and others to do them away can ever succeed, tbid.; sum- 
mary of the contents of the Epistle, 204, 205, note; P. E. Pusey’s summary 
imperfect, seemingly because of his lack of entire faith in some teachings 
of Ephesus, 205 note; authority of the document, 205-208; its text, 208; we 
follow mainly Coleti’s text, zb7d. ; the lettered sections of it, 208; its heading 
shows it to be Synodal, 206, and note 532 on pages 209, 210; in it Cyriland 
the Bishops of his Patriarchate ‘‘ PROTEST”’ against Nestorius and his crea- 
ture-worship and other errors, as the English Reformers of the Sixteenth 
Century protested against Rome and her creature-worship and her other 
errors, 210, note 533; in what sense God calls Himself a Protestant, tbid.; 
the Nestorian Man-worship and other errors termed by Ephesus an 
“Apostasy,” ibid.; the present Romish and Greek relative worship of 
the Virgin Mary, saints, images, relics, etc., is relative commonly, like 
that of the Nestorians, but much worse, zdid.; the worship of the golden 
calf in the wilderness and that of the calves at Bethel and Dan was re/a- 
tive, 1bid.; God's curses on the Israelites for it, zbzd., differences in the 
use of the term Catholic between the Greeks and the Latins, zd7d., page 
211; in what sense the term Protestant may well be used of the Orthodox; 
in what sense it is heretical, zb¢d., different names applied to the Ortho- 
dox in different ages; different names applied to creature servers also, 
211, 212, note 533; hopelessness of any union between creature-invokers, 
or of any union between any except on the basis of the Six Councils, 212, 
note 533; the name Protestant Episcopal, 212, note 533; strong but 
Scriptural language applied in Cyril’s Long Letter to Nestorius’ denial of 
the Incarnation, to his Man-service, and to his errors on the Eucharist, 
213, note 537; approval of Cyril’s Letters to Nestorius before the Third 
Council met, in that Council, and afterwards, 213, note 538; Cyril was 
sound on the Two Natures of Christ, 217, notes 559, 560. 

Writings of Cyril before the Third Ecumenical Council met which 
must have powerfully instructed and influenced it against N estorius’ 
denial of the Inman, against his worship of a mere man, and against his 
real one nature presence in the Eucharist and against the cannibalism of 
eating it there, 269-276; St. Cyril, addressing him in his Ecumenically 
approved Long Epistle to him, speaks as follows of all those and all 
other errors of Nestorius: “Accordingly thou art to confess in writing and 
on oath that thou anathematizest on the one hand THY OWN FOUL AND 
PROFANE DOGMAS,” etc., aS on page 213, above, text. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria’s XII. Chapters, xxxvi.; 70, note; 75, note; 116, note; 197, note 497; 
see passim in notes on pages 314-358, on them and on other writings of 
Cyril there cited; his Defence of them against Theodoret, 67, note; 76, 
note; his Defence of them against the Orientals, 75, note; his explanation 
of them spoken at Ephesus, lii.; his Chapter, that is, Anathema VIIL., Ζ2., 
viii.; 22, note 22; 116, note; 184, note 438; 215, note 548; his Anathema, 
that is, Chapter X., 471, note 995; pages 514-516; his Chapter XII., note 
“599 Cyril of Alexandria's XII. Chapters, thatis, hts XTT, Anathemas, 
and their teachings, contrasted with Nestorius XII. Counter Anathemas 
and their teachings, 314-359. If Nestorius’ Counter Anathemas are gen- 


588 


Act . Ὁ Ephesus. 


uine they were probably written in Greek; but it is not now extant. The 
Anathemas of Cyril and the Synod of the Egyptian Diocese, being 
approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, remain valid and an essen- 
tial part of the faith forever, zbzd. English translation of Cyril's XII. 
Anathemas, 314-359. 


Anathema 7, and notes on it, 314-318, text, and notes 656 to 659, 
inclusive; its teaching is that God the Word was incarnate in the Virgin 
and was born out of her, and that therefore she can be called Bringer 
Forth of God (Θεοτόκος), ibid. Cyril’s ‘Let him be anathema,’’ uttered 
against every denier of those tenets, is Scriptural, zbzd., note 659; what 
heretics are anathematized by the Universal Church; whom we also must 
anathematize, note 659, pages 321, 322; all acts of image worship and of 
creature worship cursed, zb7d.,; two kinds of cursing condemned by God 
in His Word and by the Universal Church, that is, 1, common cursing; 
and 2, anathematizing by heretics, by creature invokers, and by image 
worshippers, z67d.; specimens of idolatrous acts, 7b7d. 


Nestorius’ Counter Anathemas,; Hefele admits them as genuine, 320, 
note 657; doubt as to them, zd7d.; their Latin text corrupt, zbzd.,; their 
Counter Anathema T., ibid., it denies the Incarnation and the expression 
Bringer Forth of God which guards it, zbzd.; the English translation of 
the Latin of it, pages 320, 321, note 657; J/other of God in it probably a 
mistranslation for Θεοτόκος, Bringer Forth of God, tbid. 


Cyril’s Anathema IT. condemns all deniers of the Substance Union; 
what it is; the text is on pages 318-322; it forbids the Nestorian denial of 
the Inman and guards against the Nestorian Man-Worship which is its 
result, 322, note 660. /7ypostasis used in it for God the Word, zd7d. See 
also notes 660-663 inclusive. 


Nestorius’ Counter Anathema 77. denies the Incarnation, and by 
inuendo slanders the Orthodox dodtrine, note 663, page 323. Cyril’s 
belief as to God the Word’s human body, zdzd. 


Cyril’s Anathema ITT, curses every one who separates Christ’s two 
Natures after the Union and conjoins them not by the Incarnation, but 
in a mere union of dignity, that is, of authority or power, as though the 
mere created nature, the humanity, could share the dignity, the authority, 
and the power of God the Creator Word, a blasphemy on the very face of 
it, 322-325, text; such a Nestorian union, relative and merely external, is 
a denial of the Incarnation, and ends in Man-Worship, that is, in crea- 
ture-worship, note 664, pages 323,324; Cyril meets Nestorius’ cavil that 
he (Nestorius) did not worship the humanity separately, but worshipped 
both natures together with but one bow or with but one worship, with 
the charge that even so he (Nestorius) was a worshipper of a Man, note 
664, page 324. 

Nestorius’ Counter Anathema III, anathematizes Cyril’s Anathema 
III., and by inuendo slanderously implies that he mingled both Natures 
together, note 665, pages 324, 325; further references on Cyril’s Anathema 
III. and Nestorius’ Man-Worship, and on his making a god out of Christ’s 


Index I1.—General Index. 589 


humanity by worshipping that mere man, the Nestorian Christ, as Cyril 
teaches. For his Christ was not God. 

In his Anathema IV. St. Cyril anathematizes every one who does 
not ascribe all the expressions used of Christ in the New Testament to 
God the Word, the divine, such for example as God, Word, as belonging 
to him as God, and the human, such, for example, as Man, Anointed, 
\s Economically Appropriated to God the Word to avoid the Nestorian 
worship of His humanity, a mere creature, contrary to Matthew iv., Io, 
325, text, and note 668, pages 665-667; Economic Appropriation for that. 
reason was Athanasius’ doctrine, See under Athanasius. 

In his Counter Anathema IV. Nestorius curses what at Ephesus was 
made the Universal Church’s doctrine of Economic Appropriation, note 
668; and implies that Cyril was a One-Natureite, 257d., whereas both were 
Two-Natureites, references, 252d. 

In his Anathema V. St. Cyril condemns the Nestorian assertion that 
Christ is a mere inspired Man, a mere creature, and insists that He is 
God the Word incarnate, pages 326, 327 and 328, text. Hammond’s and 
P. E. Pusey’s mistranslation of Θεοφόρον ἄνθρωπον, note 669, page 327; need 
of a revision of Pusey’s translation, zb7d. 

Nestorius’ Counter Anathema V., in somewhat sly language con- 
tradicts Cyril’s Anathema V., and implies that Cyril was a One-Natureite, 
note 669, page 327; falsity of that accusation, references, 77d. Nestorius 
held to Two separate Natures, both to be worshipped separately, the 
worship of the Man therefore being mere Man-Worship, note 669, page 
B27. 328. 

In his Anathema VT. Cyril condemns those who separate the two 
Natures, and insists on the fact of their Union by the Incarnation, 328, 
329, text. Explanation of the not clear part of this Anathema from 
other places in Cyril, note 671, page 328. 

Nestorius’ Counter Anathema VJ, applies the term God to Christ’s 
mere humanity, a thing which is anathematized by Cyril in his Anathema 
VIII., mentions or confesses an Incarnation in name only, and falsely 
implies that St. Cyril was an Apollinarian, z67d.,; conne¢tion of the error 
of Nestorius here condemned with his denial of the Inman and with his 
creature-worship, 27d. 

In his Anathema VTJT. St. Cyril anathematizes what is, in effect, the 
Nestorian denial of the Inflesh, and the making of Christ a mere 
inspired Man, on whom God the Word, (outside of him, not inside of him), 
operated as he does on other mere men, Prophets and Apostles for in- 
stance, and the blasphemous creature-worship of putting about that mere 
creature the glory of the Sole-Born, that is, the ascribing to that mere 
creature the glory of God the Uncreated Word, for Cyril constantly uses 
the Sole-Born (ὁ Movoyevic) for God the Word, as he teaches in Pusey’s 
English translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
Nestorius, page 200, where, however, Pusey translates Μονογενής by Ovly- 
Begotten; compare there pages 221, 228; see in this work pages 329, 330, 
text, and note 674 there, and compare note 675. That co-glorifying a 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


creature with God the Word is anathematized by Cyril in his Anathema 
VIII., which the Third Ecumenical Council approved. 

Nestorius in reply, in his Counter Anathema [777., applies the ex- 
pression So/e Born to Christ’s mere humanity, because of tts relation to 
God the Word, Whom he admits to be the Sole Born out of the Father, 
and asserts, in effect, that that mere creature shares the honors and dig- 
nities of the Uncreated Word, that is, contrary to Matt. iv., 10, he rela- 
tively worships a mere creature, note 674, page 330. 

In his famous and remarkable Anathema VITI., Cyril condemns 
three acts of creature-worship; that is, the co-bowing to the Man put on 
by the Logos, with God the Word, the co-glorifying that creature with 
the Word, and the co-calling that creature God with the Word; and then 
Cyril anathematizes every one who does not honor God the Word with 
but one bow, that is, with but one worship, and send up but one glorify- 
ing to Him, on the ground that the Word has been made flesh; that is, he 
mentions only Emmanuel, that is, “‘God with us,’’ that is, God the 
Word, as the object of the one bow, that is, the one worship, and of the 
one glorifying, and that on the ground that He has been made flesh, 331, 
332, text, and notes 676 to 680 inclusive. He does not mention the Man 
at all as sharing the worship, but, on the contrary, the former part of 
this Anathema and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council 
anathematize every one who “‘says that the Anointed One 1s to be bowed 
to in two Natures,’ note 679; Cyrilis for Divine and absolute worship to 
God alone; forbids all xe/at7ve worship, notes 677, 678, 679; things rela- 
tively worshipped by Romanists and other idolaters, acts of such worship, 
tbid.; Chrystal’s articles on that matter in the Church Journal, tbid.; a 
faulty reading in Anathema VIII., note 677. 

Nestorius’ Counter Anathema VIII, anathematizes every one who 
worships Christ’s humanity for its own sake, that is absolutety, as we say, 
but avers that its velatzve worship is right, against Cyril, against the 
Third Council, and against Christ in Matt. iv., το; 332, 333, note 697; 
references on such matters, and on all Nestorian worship of Christ’s 
humanity, and on the real but unintended worship of it by the Mono- 
physites, 333, note; the Orthodox and the Nestorians worshipped God 
the Word, zé7d., but they differed as follows as to worshipping his 
humanity; Cyril seems according to one view and to the understanding 
of him by Nestorians, not to have worshipped Christ’s humanity at all, 
whereas the Nestorians worshipped it relatively by bowing, etc., zbzd.; 
Cyril calls it ‘‘the crime of worshipping a Man,’ 334, note; Anathema 
VIII. of Ephesus against it, 7b7d. so is Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council, note on pages 335, 336; parts of Nestorius’ Ecumenic- 
ally condemned XX. Blasphemies are for it, note on pages 335, 336; 
wonderful mercy of God in defining anticipatively by the VI. Ecumen- 
ical Synods against the idolatries and creature-worship of the idolatrous 
conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, note on pages 336, 337; strange blunder 
of Kenrick, the Romish antagonist of Christ’s command to worship God 
alone, 337, note; he misrepresents Nestorius and really held to the Rela- 


Index I1.—General Index 591 


tive wotship of Christ’s humanity, for he admits ‘‘¢hat the flesh of Christ 
* * * ἧς to be adored, NOT FOR ITS OWN SAKE, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF 
"HE DIVINE SUBSISTENCE WHOM IT CONTAINS, 347, note; refutation of 
his false statements, note on pages 338-341; Kenrick agrees with Nestor- 

ius against Cyril that certain texts teach the worship of Christ’s human- 

ity, 341, note; alleged passages from Ambrose, Augustine, and John of 
Damascus, adduced by Kenrick for the worship of Christ’s humanity, 

condemned by the whole Church in Ecumenical Councils, 7d7d.; 

Kenrick’s worship of Christ in the Eucharist condemned by St. Cyriland 
the Third Council, as wel! as the worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 

which is Nestorian relative worship of a creature, 342; refutation of 
Kenrick’s pleas for them, 342, 343. 

The Monophysite worship of Christ’s humanity was not intended, 
but zz fact they did worship it, 343-346; two kinds of it, zdzd.; both con- 
demned in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, 767d. How 
St. Cyril and the Universal Church following him differed from the Nes- 
torians on the one hand and from the Monophysites on the other as to 
worshipping the humanity of Christ, 346; the first opinion is that Cyril 
worshipped in Christ only His Divinity, and regarded all worship of His 
humanity as Man Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), that is, Creature-Worship, and 
therefore as forbidden by Almighty God in His Holy Word, and that that 
dodtrine of Cyril in histwo Epistles, andin Anathema VIII. in the longer 
of them has been approved by the Third Ecumenical Synod, and that the 
same teaching is incorporated into the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council, and into its Anathema IX.; so that his doctrine is now that of 
the whole Church, and whosoever contradicts it is a heretic; a parallel 
view on that point of Cyril’s doctrine, of that of Nestorius, and of that of 
the Monophysites, 347; argument for the first opinion from Cyril’s own 
words; and from Nestorian statements, for they should have known how 
he differed from them, 346-351; but odjection, neither St. Cyril nor the 
Universal Church intended to condemn the worship of Christ’s two Na- 
tures together, but only the worship of the humanity when separate from 
the Divinity, 351, note. Azswer, Cyril’s own statements do not agree 
with the objection but refute it as do those of the Nestorian Eutherius of 
Tyana, note on pages 351-353. The second opinion as to whether Cyril 
worshipped the humanity of Christ or not, is that he worshipped it and 
God the Word together but ina different way from that in which the Nes- 
torians did it, and in a different way from that in which the Monophysites 
did it, and that his doing so is approved by the Third World Synod and 
the Fifth, 353, note; arguments from Cyril for this view, and answers 
from Cyril and from Nestorian witness against it, 353-357, note. The 
writer of this note reserves the final expression of his opinion on this 
whole matter, 356; he wishes to be understood as merely stating the his- 
torical facts and as giving the historical quotations and references, and 
as being entirely silent for the present, as to his own views on these last 
points. His work here he wishes to be merely that of the historian, not 
of the giver of his own opinions. 


δ92 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


SG ae a a aS 


But odjeétion ; some writers outside the Alexandrian School and before 
Cyril, held to the worship of Christ’s humanity whit God the Word, 357, 
note. Answer, it is granted that writers ofthe corruptSyrian School did 
so, but Cyril wrote against them, and they are Ecumenically condemned, 
358, note. 

As to acertain passage from Athanasius quoted by Kenrick for the 
worship of Christ’s humanity, it does not prove it; and two other alleged 
passages, one from Ambrose and the other from Augustine, for the wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity in the Eucharist, are by necessary implication 
condemned by St. Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council. Moreover, 
to turn from the subject of worshipping Christ’s humanity, the highest 
of all mere creatures, to the topic of worshipping other creatures; and all 
admit that all other creatures are inferior to him: 

If certain writers, such as Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory 
of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa fell into the sins of invoking crea- 
tures and any other sin of worship to creatures, those paganizings are 
Ecumenically condemned and anathematized by the Third Council, 358, 
note; Scudamore's citations from ancient writers; supreme value and au- 
thority of the utterances of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria 
on such themes as approved by the VI. Ecumenical Synods, 358, note; 
principles on which we must act in deciding every theological question, 
359, note; a future Dissertation in this Set on the worship of Christ’s hu- 
manity, 2id.; whether men hold that Cyril and Ephesus rejected all wor- 
ship of Christ’s humanity absolutely, or only condemned the worship of 
it separate from His Divinity, all invokers of the Triune God alone agree 
that their decision condemns all worship of any creature less than Fits 
humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs, and other saints, or any arch- 
angel, or angel, or any other creature whomsoever. For if, as a cleric, I 
am deposed, and if, as a laic, I am excommunicated, if I give bowing or 
prayer or any other act of religious service to Christ’s perfect humanity, 
confessedly the highest of all mere creatures, much more (ὦ /ortiort) 
am I deposed and anathematized if I worship any lesser creature, 359, 
note; a passage of Athanasius, and two passages of Cyril for the worship 
of God’s divine Nature alone, note on pages 359, 360; Habid the Deacon 
at his martyrdom in A. D. 312 or 313, testifies against the worship of 
Christ’s humanity and for the worship of God the Word alone in the Son, 
360, note; his witness put into poetic form by James of Sarug, who was 
born A. D. 452, and died A. D. 521, note on pages 360, 361 and 362; large 
amount of matter in Athanasius and Cyril on the worship of Christ’s 
humanity, 362, note 680. 

Cyril, in his Avathema TX. makes God the Word the worker of the 
miracles of Christ, by His Spirit. The Nestorian Counter Anathema LX. 
makes a mere Man, (all there was of the Nestorian Christ), do them, text, 
pages 333-338, and note 681, there; the Nestorian assertion leads to the 
ascribing of the prerogative attributes of God to a mere creature, and to 
the worship of a mere creature, note 681, page 362, where Cyril explains 
this Anathema, zdzd. 


Index TI.—General Index. 593 


nee EE 


In his Anathema X. St. Cyril teaches that God the Word is our fligh 
Priest and Apostle, and the Offerer of Himself for us, and not at all the 
Offerer of Himself for Himself, inasmuch as He had no sin, 339-346, text, 
and notes 682-688 on pages 363-406. Nestorius teaches that a mere in- 
spired man, that is a mere creature, has redeemed us, and that he is now 
our High Priest and Apostle, the upshot of which is that when we invoke 
him we invoke a mere creature, and so are guilty of giving prayer, an 
act of religious worship, to a mere creature, and so are creature-worship- 
pers; and he held that the Sinless offered for Himself, a blasphemy, 365, 
note. Cyril’s doctrine, approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, is 
necessary to guard against the error that a creature can redeem a creature 
or share God the Word’s prerogative redemptive office; and to guard the 
prerogative glory of the Logos’ Mediatorial work, of which Intercession — 
is a part, and to exclude from any part in it every creature, be it the 
Virgin Mary, saints, martyrs, archangels, angels, orany other creature, 363, 
notes 684, 685, 686, 687 and 688; a passage from Cyrilof Alexandria which 
serves to explain this Anathema X., 364, 365, note; further references to 
him, 365, note. Absurdity and blasphemy of making a mere man our 
High Priest and Intercessor, 365, note; the Word, however, does the hu- 
man things, such as suffering and dying and worshipping, by His humanity, 
note 688, page 363-366; see Christ, Prayer, and Worship. The chief 
fan@tion now of Christ’s High Priesthood is to intercede for us, 366, note; 
Nestorius denies the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 366, note; 
plurring of the sound do¢trine of Christ’s sole Mediatorship and sole In- 
tercession in heaven in Liturgies, zbid., their present forms later than the 
ninth century, 7d7d.; example of perversion in heretical Liturgies, tbid., 
a golden canon of III. Carthage, A. D. 397, on the Office Work of the 
Father and on that of the Son, 27d. The Alexandrian Church wont be- 
fore Cyril to approach the Father in prayer through the Son asin the 
New Testament, zbzd.; examples from Origen, zbzd.,; reason as well as 
Holy Writ shows that all prayer and all invocation are prerogative to 
God alone, because He alone possesses the infinite attributes of omnis- 
cience and omnipresence to hear it, and tosearch and know the hearts of 
millions of his invokers at the same instant, and omnipotence to answer 
them, note on pages 365, 366, 367 and 368; besides, we are forbidden by 
Christ Himself to give any act of religious service to any creature, and 
prayer is an act of religious service, 367, 368; the act of the Aaronic High 
Priest, Christ’s foretype, on the Day of Atonement, in going alone into 
the most holy place, and there alone interceding for Israel, was a fore- 
type and proof of the soleness of Christ’s intercession in the most holy 
place above, 368, 369, note; an orthodox passage of Augustine teaches 
this truth, 369, note; so does Ephesus, ibid.» Nestorianism, like the idol- 
atrous churches of Rome and Greece, degraded the peculiarly divine 
functions of God the Word’s Redemptive Mediatorial and Intercessory 
Office, and blasphemously gave them to a mere creature, 370, note; 
Clement of Alexandria givesto God the Word all those functions, 370, note: 
and 371, note; Tertullian teaches that we goto the Father through the Son, 


594 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


ibid.; Julius Africanus makes ‘Christ * * * the High Priest of Hts Father, 
who presents our prayers to Him,’ note on pages 371, 372. Athanasius, 
makes God the Word our Redeemer, High Priest, Apostle, and Inter- 
cessor in heaven, 372-376, note; to the same effect Cyril again and again, 
376, note; Newman’s blunder in making Cyril favor Nestorius’ heresy 
“that the Man Christ Jesus wast he priest! 3 thid. is ignorance of 
‘what is Catholic doctrine”’ on that point, 2b7d. The Catholic doctrine of 
Christ’s sacrifice, and High Priesthood, of which Intercession is a part 
stated, note on pages 376, 377. Newman’s dodtrine is in part that of 
Nestorius, and ends like his in Man-Worship, 377, note. Newman never 
knew fully the VI. Synods, and died in errors anathematized by them; 
aye, died th idolater’s hopeless death, 377, note; discussion between 
Stancaro the Socinian and Osiander the Lutheran on Christ’s High 
Priestly sacrifice, 2b7d.; Theodoret held with Nestorius that Christ’s 
humanity only is our High Priest, zbzd.; references to Cyril and quota- 
tions from him on Christ’s Sole Redemption, Sole High Priesthood and 
Sole Intercession above, 377, 378 and 379, note; he shows that Nestorius’ 
making a mere man our High Priest ends in making a god of Christ’s 
humanity, and in turning the Divine and Consubstantial Triad, that is, 
Trinity, into a Tetrad, 379, note. Augustine, even in a work in which 
he favors saint worship, uses language in one place at least which may 
be taken in an Orthodox sense as to Christ’s Priesthood, 379, 380, note; 
though, as is said above under his name, unsound passages are ascribed 
to him, see Augustine of Hippo; Leo 1. of Rome, a man of faults and 
virtues, who in certain points deserved ill of the Church and in others 
well, was unsound in believing that saints in heaven pray for us, and so 
share Christ’s prerogative of Intercession there, an error which has been 
attributed truthfully or falsely to Cyprian of Carthage, 380, 381, note; 
his errors not approved by Chalcedon nor by any other of the VI. Ecu- 
menical Councils, 381, note; the Orthodox doctrine approved by Ephesus 
on the Soleness of Christ’s Intercession in heaven was blurred and 
denied in the Middle Ages, but restored by the English Reformers, 
note on pages 381, 382; they perhaps did not know fully the doctrine 


- of Economic Appropriation, which had been abandoned and almost 


forgotten in the ages of creature-worship and of idolatry, but they got 
back to its great idea, 382, note; their great merits, zdzd.,; they reformed 
and restored much; we should restore all Ante-Nicene Do¢trine, Discip- 
line and Rite, and all the Dodtrine, Discipline and Rite of the Six 
World Councils, 382, 383, note. The Second Part ef the Homily of 
the Church of England concerning Prayer, restored Cyril’s and the 
Universal Church’s doctrine in his Anathemas VIII. and X., that 
we may pray to no one but God, nor give bowing nor any other 
ac&t of religious service to any but God, nor regard any creature as 
our Intercessor in heaven, note on pages 382, 383; the Second Fart of 
the Homily concerning Prayer quoted, note on pages 383-388. The 
Homily of the Church of England on the Nativity, which is approved in 
Article XXXV., testifies for the doctrine that the Word in His Divinity 


Index II.—General Index. 595 


alone does the divine things of His High Priesthood and Mediatorial 
work, such as hearing our prayers, searching and knowing the heart, etc., 
and against the error of Nestorius that Christ’s mere humanity, a crea- 
ture only, is our High Priest, note on pages 388, 389; the passage quoted, 
389, 390; Article XX XI. excellently and Cyrillianly guards the Soleness. 
‘‘ of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the cross,’? and, by implica- 
tion, the Soleness of His High Priestly sacrifice there, and condemns the 
Romish doctrine opposed to it, 390; it is quoted, 391; the true doctrine of 
the Scriptures and of the Universal Church stated on the One Sole all-suf- 
ficient Sacrifice of Christ for sins forever, of His High Priestly functions of 
Mediation now for us by intercession for us, and of the prerogative 
Soleness of His intercession for us in heaven, and of the Eucharist, 
and on all the doctrine of Cyril’s Anathema X., 391, 392, 393; summary 
statement to show how Cyril’s Anathema X., and his Anathema VIII, 
and Anathema IX., of the Fifth Synod (which are all indissolubly linked 
together), are maintained in the Christian world and in that which calls 
itself Christian, 393, note; I., as to the Unreformed Communions; (1) the 
Greek Church; (2) the Latin Church; (3) the Monophysites; (4) the 
Nestorians; 393, 394, note; II., the Reformed Communions, 394, note; 
(1) the English Church Formularies on them, 394, 395, 396, note; (2) the 
Belgic Confession of A. D. 1561, 396, note; III., the Deformed; (1) the 
Socinians, and the modern Anti-Trinitarians, 396-402; Stancaro’s contro- 
versy with Osiander, 396, 397, note; the conflict between the Adorers of 
Christ’s mere humanity and the Non-Adorers, the two Socinian parties, 
397-401, note; illogical character of Socinus’ mind in making Christ a 
mere creature, and yet worshipping him, 397, note; Socinian heresies on 
infant baptism, and on the Holy Ghost, 397, note; the Budnaean and 
Favorian Sects; the leader of the former, a Non-Adorer, deposed by the 
majority of the Socinians for his error, 397, 398, note; Farnovius forbade his 
followers to pray to the Holy Spirit, 399, note; Francis Davides, a Non- 
Adorer, imprisoned by Socinians till his death, for refusing to worship 
their merely human Christ, 398, 399, note; inconsistent conduct of Socinus: 
and his faction in so persecuting his fellow heretics, 399, note; compar- 
ison between the Man-Worshipping Nestorians and the Man-Worshipping- 
Socinians on Man-Worship, z6zd.; quotations from the Racovian Cate- 
chism on Man-Worship, 400, note; controversy ‘‘between Socinus and 
others, especially the Siebenburg Unitarians, as to the divine honor to be 
paid to Christ,’? 400; Neuser, a Socinian, turned Mohammedan and died 
in that error, subnote ‘‘a,’”’ page 398; the turnings and twistings of 
Francken, another of them, subnote ‘‘c,’’ page 398; late Anti-Trinitarians, 
generally Non-Adorers, 400, 401; note; Stancaro the Socinian, and Peter 
Lombard, the mediaeval Romanist, both oppose Cyril and Ephesus by 
making Christ Mediator in His human nature only, 4o1, note; certain 
expressions in Lutheran documents are clearly Nestorian, creature wor- 
shipping, and blasphemous; their Consubstantiation and any worship of 
the alleged real presence in the Eucharist condemned by Cyril and by 
Ephesus, 402-405, note; Cyril’s words, 767d, Schwenkfelder starts an 


596 


Act 1. of Ephesus. 


error much like the Apollinarian heresy, on Christ’s flesh and on its 
worship, 405, 406, note; in the Anglican Communion, Newman, Keble, 
Pusey, Neale, J. H. Blunt and others, have introduced creature invoking 
error against St. Cyril’s Anathemas VIII., and X., and against Ephesus, 
and, they have brought in Consubstantiation and Host Worship against 
Cyril and Ephesus and against their own formularies; duty of the Angli- 
can Church against those corrupters, 406. 

Cyril of Alexandria’s Encharistic Anathema, the XTIth of his 
XTT., is aimed at the error of Nestorius that in the Eucharist we eat the 
flesh of his merely human Christ, and so are guilty of what St. Cyril 
expressly calls avépwrogayia, that is, CANNIBALISM ; see in proof Cyril as 
quoted in the note on page 262 above, and Sections 4 and 5 of Book IV. 
of his #ive-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, pages 
141, 142 of the Oxford translation of ‘“S. Cyril of Alexandria on the In- 
carnation against Nestorius.’’ Cyril, on the contrary, contends in this 
Anathema XI. that a mere man’s flesh cannot give life, note on page 62 
above (Section 5, Book IV., zd., page 142 of the Oxford translation), but 
that Christ’s flesh quickens us ‘‘ decause it has been made an own flesh of 
the Word,”’ or ‘‘a peculiar flesh of the Word ”? (ort γέγονεν ἰδία τοῦ Λόγου), 
“‘who has power to give life to all things,’ see the text in this volume, 
pages 347-354; Cyril, however, explains himself on pages 231-240, text, 
above, and in the note on pages 250-313, to mean that the real Substance 
of God the Word’s Divinity is not eaten in the Lord’s Supper, and that 
It is not on the Holy Table at all; and that the real substances of Christ’s 
flesh and blood are not on the Holy Table in the Rite, are not eaten by 
us, and that it would be ‘‘cannibalism”? (avipwrogayia) and ‘‘ savageness 
befitting a wild animal’’ and ‘‘a monstrosity’? to do so, note on pages 
262, 263; see especially the text as above on the eating of Christ’s flesh 
and blood, and the note on pages 260-276; and against worship of the 
Eucharist, 276 and after; and against the horrible error that we eat the 
Substance of God the Word’s Divinity, and that It lies on the Holy Table 
in the Rite, see note on pages 250-260; and on page 264, note, Cyril shows 
that he does not hold to what above he calls cannibalism, for he states 
that the benefit of the rite is spiritual, and that the sight of Christ’s flesh 
and blood on the tables would horrify us, but that He ‘‘sends the power 
of life into the things which lie before us,’’ (which he has just spoken of 
as ‘‘ leavened bread and wine’) ‘‘and changes them’’ [he does not say 
into the actual substance, but] ‘‘fo THE ENERGY Of Ais own flesh, in 
order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking, and that the 
body of the Life may be found in us as a life-giving seed.’’ On page 267, 
note, Cyril says that the Nestorians, by representing “ our Sacrament to 
be an EATING OF A MAN’S FLESH,’’ are guilty of ‘‘UNHOLILY bringing 
the minds of believers to notions of wickedness.’? And certainly Canni- 
balism (avipwrogayia), as Cyril termsit, issuch. And he there denounces 
Nestorius’ man-eating as ‘‘doing away unlearnedly the force of the Mys- 
zery,’’ that is, Sacrament; and he teaches that ‘‘/for that very reason and 
with great justice has the Anathematism (X1.) been set forth.” 


Index II.—General Index. 597 


Nestorius, τὴ, his Counter Anathema XT., on page 408, note, anath- 
ematizes ‘‘anuy one’’ who ‘“‘says that the flesh united to the Word of God 
is quickening dy any possibility of tts own natnre,’’ forasmuch as ‘‘the 
Lord himself proclaims, ‘It ts the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profit- 
eth nothing,’’’ John vi., 63; but Nestorius, as in his Blasphemy 18 
below, implies that Cyril denied any eating of flesh in the Eucharist, but 
asserted an eating of Divinity alone instead after the Apollinarian or 
Monophysite error. But Cyril shows, as above, that he rejected any 
and all eating of flesh in the rite, and all drinking of blood there, and all 
eating of the Divinity, and that he held to the real absence of the Sub- 
stance of Divinity, and of the substance of Christ’s flesh and blood from 
the rite, and shows that, notwithstanding all Nestorius’ denials, his pre- 
mises of a real presence of the substance of Christ’s body, and a real 
presence of the substance of His blood result in Cannibalism, 408, note; 
reference to Cyril on this, zd7d. 

Cyril,in his Avxathema X/T., teaches that Divinity cannot suffer, but 
nevertheless Economically Appropriates the sufferings and death of 
Christ’s humanity to God the Word to avoid Man-Worship, etc., 409, 
note; this doctrine explained in notes 694 to 701 inclusive, pages 409-413; 
Nestorius anathematizes it in his Counter Anathema XTT., 409, note. 
Athanasius testifies for the doctrine of Hconomic Appropriation, the ex- 
pression and doctrine used in Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch, which 
was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 409, note, and 411, 
note; quotes Scripture for the doctrine, 409, 410, note; Cyril referred to 
and quoted on the expression and doctrine, 409-413; the expression and 
doctrine in Cyril’s Longer Epistle, which was approved by the Third 
World Council, 410, note; passages from the Longer Recension of Iren- 
aeus for it, note on pages 410, 411; sermons attributed to Proclus for it, 
but not relied on, on account of doubts as to their really being his, note 
on pages 411, 412; Scripture for it, notes 695-701 inclusive. 

Cyril of Alexandria misunderstood, Preface, i.; confines all worship 
to God alone, specimens of his language on that, zd7d., ii.; 184, note 438, 
and pages 359, 360, note and subnotes, and under προσκυνῶ, in the Greek 
Index in this volume; see also Mary the Virgin; suffered imprisonment 
for his faith, 18; was raised up by God for His work, 16; his firmness, 16, 
17; see under Cyril in Index I.; is worried by some of his malicious 
clergy or people at Constantinople, who intrigued against him with Nes- 
torius or the civil rulers; he had disciplined or rebuked them, 53-59, and 
note 144 on page 58; his right and duty to do so, 59, note 146. 

He condemns errors on the Eucharist, Preface, ii.-iv.; see Eucharist; 
wrongly supposed by Nestorius to be an Apollinarian, 251, note; 255, 
note; Theodoret so misrepresents him, and Cyril denies the slander, 271, 
note; and repels the Docetic or Marcionite error on Christ’s body and the 
Eucharist advocated in our time by Pusey and Shipley, 7d7d., and sub- 
note ‘‘d,’’ on page 271; for quotations from Cyril’s writings see the notes 
in this volume, especially notes 183 and 606. Cyril brands Nestorius’ 
heresy on the Eucharist as resulting in CANNIBALISM (ἀνθρωποφαγία), iii. ; 


598 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


the error that Christ’s whole Person and both Natures are eaten in the 
Eucharist was not in Cyril’s day, zbzd., and 251, note; Romish mistakes 
on Cyril, vi.-ix.; the Universal Church in the Third Synod approved 
Cyril’s doétrine on the’ Eucharist and condemned Nestorius’, and antici- 
patively all other Eucharistic heresy, ii.-iv. The Church of England 
quotes Cyril as ‘‘az old and holy doctor’ against creature-service, vii.; 
Luther’s mistake on Cyril, vii.; it was the cause of others making the 
same mistake, vii. 

Cyril of Alexandria against Diodore of Tarsus, xv., xvi.; 113; his 
great influence at Ephesus, note 94, page 39; his memory made eternal 
by the Fourth Council, 57, note. ‘ds Cyril believed, so we believe! 
Eternal be Cyril’s memory! As the Epistles of Cyril teach, so we 
hold,” etc., zbid.; writes against the Co-Substancers, 61, note 154; held 
the doctrine of Two Natures, 73, note 163; 61, note 154; held Divinity to 
be bodiless, 76, note 175; need of a critical edition of Cyril, 102, note; 
spurious works ascribed to him, 102, note; mournful results of such 
works, 102, note; against the Nestorian Andrew of Samosata; he con- 
demns the worship of Christ’s flesh along with His Divinity, and asserts 
the worship of God the Word within His flesh (μετὰ σαρκός), 116, 117; the 
Greek terms involved, 117; see 267d., and under μετὰ σαρκός and σύν and 
συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι, in the Greek Index to this volume. 

Cyril the Orthodox and Nestorius the Heresiarch,; the controversy 
between them; mistakes as to Nestorius’ heresies among Protestants and 
Romanists, i.-v.; what his heresies were and how the Universal Church 
condemned them, i.-iv., v-xi., xv.-lii.; he denied the Inman, and asserted 
Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) and Cannibalism (avépwrogayia) in the 
Eucharist, i.-iv. See under ‘‘Westorius and his Heresies,’’ and under 
“Man-Worship” and “Eucharist”? in this Index and in that to Vol. I. 
of Nicaea. 

Diodore of Tarsus was the originator of his heresies; this shown by 
the quotations from him by Cyril, xv., xvi., text and notes; he denied 
the Incarnation, and asserted the worship of Christ’s mere separate 
humanity; the Fragments of him preserved by Cyril have nothing definite 
on the Eucharist, xvi.; the same errors, including Cannibalism, shared 
and maintained by his disciples, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, 
and generally in the Patriarchate of Antioch, xvi.; Nestorius and Theo- 
doret for all those errors, xvi., xvii.; yet Theodoret condemns the wor- 
ship of angels, xvii.; the Syrian leaders seem to have worshipped relics, 
xviii.; St. Cyril refuses to put Chrysostom’s name into the diptychs, xviii. ; 
meaning of that act, xviii.; invocation of saints in places of Chrysostom’s 
works now; his suspicious language on the Eucharist, xviii., xix.; Alex- 
andria free from the Nestorian heresies, xix.; it still maintained New 
Testament faith and pra¢cticeon the Lord’s Supper, xix. ; the logical result 
of those divergencies was conflict; it came at Constantinople when Nes- 
torius of Antioch became its Bishop; Anastasius, a presbyter from 
Antioch, begins it by denying that theterm Bringer Forth of God, which 
guards the Incarnation, can be used of the Virgin, xx.; there was no 


Index IT.—General Index. 599 


worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church then, zé7d., when it first 
appears among the Collyridian heretics, about A. D. 374-377, St. 
Epiphanius, the greatest heresiologist the Church has ever produced, 
ascribes it to the devil and to weak-minded women, his dupes, xx.; it 
was impliedly condemned by Ephesus, ii.-iv.; accounts of the beginning 
of the Nestorian controversy; Socrates’, xx., xxi., xxii.; Cyril of Alex- 
andria’s, xxii.-xxvi.; the Inflesh, and the expression Θεοτόκος, that is, 
Bringer Forth of God, which guards it, the source of the conflict, xxvi.; 
it developed into the sequences of the Nestorian denial of it, Man-Wor- 
ship, to which One-Nature Consubstantiation and Cannibalism on the 
Eucharist and other heresies were soon added, xxvi.; Nestorius deposes 
Orthodox clerics and persecutes Orthodox laics, xxvii., xxviii.; Nestorius 
had zeal against some heresies, but fell into the heresies above specified 
himself, in other words into the paganism of worshipping a mere crea- 
ture, and into cannibalism, xxvi.-xxxi.; Cyril of Alexandria enters the 
lists for the faith, and writes to the Monks of Egypt; and puts forth his 
notable Five Book Contradittion of the Blasphemtes of Nestorius, in 
which he exposes and refutes Nestorius’ denial of the Inman, and of the 
doé¢trine of Economic Appropriation, and his creature-worship and his Can- 
nibalism, aud hisother errors, xxxi.; his prudence, and his self-sacrifice in 
opposing the greatest Patriarch of the East, backed by the Emperor; tre- 
mendous power of the See of Constantinople at this time, xxxii.-xxxv.; 
Cyril, in his Coztyvadiétion just mentioned, quotes all or nearly all of the 
XX. Blasphemies of Nestorius which set forth his errors, which are 
quoted in Act I. of Ephesus, and made part of the basis of his deposition, 
xxxv.; the English translation of the Coutradi¢tion needs revision, xxxv.; 
the Orthodox clergy of Constantinople put forth a protest against Nestor- 
ius’ heresies, xxxv.; Basil, the Deacon and Archimandrite, and Theose- 
bius and the rest of the Monks petition the Emperors against Nestorius 
and for an Ecumenical Council, xxxv.; Cyril writes to Nestorius to dis- 
suade him from his errors, xxxv., xxxvi.; Nestorius persists; Cyril writes 
his second letter to him in which he explains the faith, and protests 
against his denial of the Inman, Man-Worship, etc.; Nestorius replies, 
denies the Incarnation and Economic Appropriation, xxxvi.; Cyril at 
first was chary of putting his Letters on the Nestorian controversy before 
Celestine, Bishop of Rome, perhaps because he feared that he (Celestine) 
was not fully sound, or because he feared that his influence would be 
against him because a few years before he (Cyril) had helped the North 
Africans under the great see of Carthage to maintain their stand against 
the attempt of Celestine and his immediate predecessors to get the power 
of Appellate Jurisdiction over them. He had done so by sending them, 
at their request, the original Greek of the Twenty Canons of the First 
Ecumenical Synod, and so exposed the claim of Rome that local Canons 
of Sardica belong to it; for her legate had quoted them as being those of 
Nicaea, and tried to palm them off on the Africans as such. See Chrys- 
tal’s Articles on that matter in the Church Journal for 1870. They will 
probably appear in the last volume of the Acts of Ephesus in this Set. 


600 


Ad I. of Ephesus. 


Hence Cyril orders his messenger, Possidonius the Deacon, not to deliver 
his Letters to Celestine unless he finds that Nestorius had put his heret- 
ical writings before him. Possidonius, finding that Nestorius had, then 
delivers Cyril’s, 31,32. The different parts of the Church take sides, 
most with Cyril, but the Patriarchate of Antioch stands by Nestorius. 
Celestine of Rome and a local Council there against Nestorius; Cyril and 
the Diocese of Egypt in a local Council are against him, and Cyril and 
his Synod put forth his Long Epistle against Nestorius, xxxvi.-xxxviii. ; 
Theodoret and Andrew write against Cyril’s XII. Chapters, xxxvi.; Cyril 
sends both those Synodal Epistles to Nestorius; each contained a warning 
that unless within ten days after they came to him he renounced his 
errors and condemned them, and professed the Universal Church’s faith 
against them, he would be excommunicate, xxxvi. and xxxvii.: they 
were delivered to Nestorius on Nov. 30, or Dec. 7, 430. But on Nov. 19, 
430, the Emperors had called an Ecumenical Council to meet at Ephesus, 
on Pentecost, June 7, A. Ὁ. 431, to settle all the questions inyolved, 1.; 
Nestorius arrives at Ephesus, l., 7. 

Second Decree of the Emperors addressed to the Bishops of the 
Third Council, 8-13; reflections on its unfairness, 16-18; noble stand of 
the Bishops against it; parallel between that stand and the stand of the 
English Bishops against James the Second’s attempt to Romanize and 
idolatrize England, 16-18. But Alexandria alone did not settle the con- 
troversy. Rome alone did not settle the controversy; that was done by 
the Ecumenical Synod which, by the help of the Holy Ghost éy a vote 


in common (38, and note 94) condemned all the errors aforesaid and 


all creature-worship and all real presence errors on the Lord’s Supper and 
their Nestorian and other sequences of worship of one or both Natures 
of the Son as if there, and Cannibalism, xxxvili,-xxxix.; failure of an 
attempt of Victor of Rome in the Second Century to put St. Polycarp 
and certain Churches of Asia out of Communion because they kept the 
Pask at a wrong time, xxxix.-xliv.; the same Churches submitted at once 
to an Ecumenical Council, Nicaea, xliv.; Spanish Christians and Cyprian 
and the African Churches under him oppose and resist Rome in the 
Third Century, xlv.; the Fifth Ecumenical Svnod censures Vigilius, 
Bishop of Rome, and the Sixth anathematizes his successor, Honorius, 
xlv.; we have more abundant examples of Peter’s fallibility in the New 
Testament than we have of any other Apostle’s, xlv.-xlviii.; any man, 
therefore, who asserts Papal Infallibility, by that fact is branded by the 
Sixth Synod as a heretic, xlviii.; just as he is branded by the First Synod 
as a heretic if he asserts the Orthodoxy of Arius; by the Second if he 
asserts the soundness of Macedonius; by the Third if he asserts the 
Orthodoxy of Nestorius; by the Fourth if he asserts that its condem- 
nation of Eutyches is wrong, etc., or if, with the Image-Worship- 
ping and Real Presence Conventicle of II. Nicaea, he contradicts the Anti- 
Image-Worshipping and Real Absence Decisions of the Third Ecumenical 
Synod, and those of the Fifth, or if he agrees with the merely Latin and 
Roman Synod of the Vatican of A. D. 1870 in contradicting the Sixth 


Index I1.—General Index. 601 


World Council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic, xlviii., 
xlix.; such Ecumenically decided points are not debatable, zd7zd.; the 
Third Synod therefore did not look upon the questions regarding Nestor- 
ius as settled by Celestine of Rome alone, but by the voice of the whole 
Episcopate in an Ecumenical Synod; they condemned his attempt to 
secure Appellate JurisdiG@ion in Africa, xlix.; spurious matter falsely 
ascribed to Proclus, xlix., 1.; John of Antioch’s delay in reaching the 
Council; blamelessness of Cyril and the Council in going on without him, 
1., li.; how Cyril could utilize the delay by spreading his works against 
Nestorius’ heresies, li., lii.; not knowing much then of Diodore and 
Theodore, he opposes Nestorius only, but afterwards, on learning of their 
errors, writes against them also, and the Fifth Council anathematizes 
their errors, and Theodore by name, 11]. 

Cyril defends the doctrine of Economic Appropriation to avoid 
Man-Worship, 116,117; Nestorius opposes, and maintains Man-Worship, 
for which Cyriland the Church anathematize him, note “‘f,’’ xxiii., xxiv.; 
see WVestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2; Cyril defends the Inman, the 
Substance Union, and the doctrine of Matt. iv., το, against Nestorius’ 
and Theodoret’s denial of the first two doctrines, and their worship of a 
mere creature, the separate humanity of Christ, note 156, pages 61-69; see 
Cyril, and Nestorius and his Heresies; Cyril is slandered as if an Apol- 
linarian, 69, note; 80, note; compare 61, text, and 73, note 163; teaches 
the doctrine of Two Natures, 80, note; his authority and that of Athan- 
asius on Creature-Worship and Man-Worship and on the Eucharist 
greater than that of all the other writers of the Fourth Century and the 
Fifth, 358, note; on God the Word as our High Priest, and against Man- 
Worship, 376, note. See Cyril, St., of Alexandria in the General Index 
to Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set. 

Cyril of Alexandria’s letters to his representatives at Constantinople 
during the sessions of the Third Council, lxxi.-lxxiii.; answer of Bishops 
there to the Holy Synod, Ixxiii.; Cyril of Alexandria goes straight home 
to Alexandria from the Council after his liberation, lxvi., Ixvii. 


Cyril of Jerusalem, 269, note. 


Cyril Lucar, the noble Reforming Greek Patriarch; 523, 525; most foully mur- 


dered, 257d. 
Dy: 


Daniel, Bishop; Cyril’s representative at Constantinople before the Council, 


lxxvi.; 414, note 703. 


David, King; 30, note 74; Christian Emperors who protected the Church 


likened to him, 2614. 


Dedication of this volume; see in front. 


Deification of Roman Emperors; 505-508, text and notes; instances of their 


blasphemous language, 509, and 507, note ‘‘e,;’’ practical deification of 
the Pope by his satellites and flatterers, 509-512. 


602 Act I, of Ephesus. 


Deipara, the Latin for Bringer Forth of God, vi. See Bringer Forth of God 
in this Index, and in the General Index to Vol. I. of Vzcaea in this Set, 
and see Θεοτόκος in the Greek Index in both. 

De Koven; wrecks the American branch of the Anglican Church in 1871, 9, 
note 8. 

Deposition of heretical clerics, i.; of Nestorius, 503, 504. 

De Pressensé,; in favor of unwise toleration error, contrary to the VI. Synods, 
Kxixs, stote ὦ: 

Digamy, Clerical; see ‘Irenaeus, Count.’ 

Dimoerites; see Two Fartites, and 108, note; see also Afpollinarians, Tim- 
otheans and Valentinians, and Polemians. 

Diocese; its meaning in the Greek Canons, xl., note “‘a,’’ 413, note 702. 

Diodore of Tarsus, the heretic; xi.; his history and errors, xv -xx., text, and 
Xv., note ‘“‘a,’’ xvi., note “‘a,;’? xx.; lii. See under Cyril the Orthodox; 
Diodore denies the Inflesh and worships Christ’s humanity, 112, 1133 was 
one of the originators of what were afterwards called Nestorian her- 
esies, 169, note 361; 456, note 914; was opposed by Gregory of Nazianzus, 
439, note 802; and by Cyril of Alexandria, 456, note 914. 

Dionystus, Bishop of Alexandria, for standing in the Eucharist, 242, note. 

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 424, note; 425. 

Droscorus of Alexandria; a Monophysite heretic, lxviii. 

Dipping, the holy; \xxviii., 111. See Baptism; the rebirth out of water is 
referred to in the New Testament, 448, note 872. 

Doctus, 424, note. 

Domitian, the Roman Emperor; his blasphemous assumption of God’s name, 
509. 

Dositheus, for Transubstantiation of the Greek form, not the Roman, 425. 

Dulia, that is slavery, the excuse of to salve over idolatry condemned by the 
English Reformers as from the Devil, 382, note; used by Kenrick, 340, 
note; 367, note; 406, note. 

Du Perron, Cardinal; on Transubstantiation, 263, subnote ‘‘hh.”” See Can- 
ntbalism. 


jij. 


Faster; the term heathen and wrong, 35, note 89; see Fass in this Index, and in 
the General Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea. 

Ficclesia docens; that is, the Teaching Fart of the Church, that is, the Episco- 
pate alone; Io, note 8; note 74, pages 32, 33; note 702, page 413. 

Ecclesia docia; that is, the Fart of the Church which ἐς taught, that is, the 
presbyters and deacons, aud all lower clerics and the laity, το, note 8; 
note 74, pages 32, 33. 

Economic Appropriation, see under Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 3, and 
note 173, pages 74-76; and under AZticus; page 112, note; 317, note 635; 
376, note; Athanasius and Cyril deem the dodtrine necessary to guard 
against Man-Worship, 159, note 316. See Athanasius, Cyril of Alex- 
andria and Nestorius, and pages 168 and 169, notes 355 and 357; and 228, 


Index IT, —General Index. 603 


notes 594, 595; and notes 714, 716, 717; Scripture proof for it, 227, note 
584; and 447, note 863; Cyril and the Third Council for it; references to 
them both; 227, note 585; Cyril and the Third Council anathematize all who 
reject it, 228, note 585; note 965, page 466. All the human names of 
the Son, such as Anointed, etc., are Economically Appropriated to God 
the Word, 226, note 583; the divine names such as So/e Born (that is, out 
of the Father’s Substance), etc., belong to God the Word’s Divinity alone, 
zbid.,; see Christ; Nestorius denies Economic Appropriation, 366, note; woful 
results of forgetting it in the Middle Ages, 381, note; it must be restored 
as part of a full restoration, 382, note. See under Cyril of Alexandria's 
ATT. Chapters, under Chapter, that is, Anathema XII., and the text of 
pages 355 to 358 inclusive, and the notes to them on pages 694-701. See 
in the Greek Index under πάθος, and οἰκονομικὴν οἰκείωσιν. Athanasius con- 
fesses it, to avoid Man-Service, 421, notes 744, 747, 748; note 753; notes 
958, 959; Cyprian confesses it, 435, text and note 787 there; the doctrine 
necessary to guard the divine preeminence of the Logos in the Union of 
the two Natures and to guard against Man-Worship, errors condemned 
by the VI. Synods (see above in this article), 435, note 787; Economic 
Appropriation, 438, nete 795; held to by Basil the Great, 445, text, and 
note 831; Gregory of Nyssa teaches it, 445, 446, text, and notes 835, 845 
and 847; so does Atticus of Constantinople, 447, 448, text, and notes 
there; and Amphilochius, 448, 449, text; Cyril contends for it, 466, 
note 965; note 972, page 469; note 990, page 471; compare notes 1020 and 
1021, page 478, and note 1022, page 479; compare 465, notes 958, 959; note 
990, page 470; note 995, page 471; how Nestorius misunderstood and mis- 
represented Cyril on, 478, note 1020. 

Ecumenical Councils; their value on the Roin'su ana other controversies, ies 
see Ephesus and the rest of the Sia Ecumenical Councils; what they are, 
v.; their Authority and Reception, v-xii.; this Translation of the Third, 
xi.-xili, Form in which this work is published, xiii.; Basis from which 
to translate, xiii.; the clergy must know and maintain them, viii.; and 
help to procure the deposition of clerics who oppose them, ix. See 
Ephesus and Cyril of Alexandria; opposition to them ends in idolatry 
and in anarchy, ix.; evil Empresses and Emperors, and the partisans of 
the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, broke them down in the 
Middle Ages, and curses followed, x.; the present woes of the Anglican 
Church come from ignorance of them, x.; were the bond of unity, x.; no 
union possible without them, x., and 35, note 88; Bishops and Emperors 
vowed to obey them, x.; their authority perpetual, x.; and 322, note 659; 
this translation of the Third, x.; are superior to the Fathers, x., note 791, 
pages 436, 437,; note D, pages 513-517; they judge and condemn some 
deemed Fathers, x.; ignorance of their utterances the cause of Pusey’s 
and Keble’s fall into a heresy worse than Nestorius’—that is, than Theo- 
doret’s Ecumenically condemned heresy of real presence and worship of 
Christ’s humanity in the Eucharist, for Pusey and Keble assert the pres- 
ence of two Natures and their being eaten there, whereas Theodoret 


0 Act I. of Ephesus. 


asserted the same presence and eating of one nature only, that is, the 
humanity, xi.; see Eucharist also. 

The editor’s work; Bishop Whittingham’s exhortation to him, xi.; 
reasons for Englishing them, xi., xii.; their form and price in English, 
xiii.; basis of this translation of Ephesus, xiii.; the Greek text of certain 
documents to be given hereafter, xiv. 

The VI. Ecumenical Councils on the duty of civil rulers, xxix., 
note; convoked by Emperors, 5.3; need of a Seventh to reform the 
Church, 5.; accursed work of the Empresses Irene and Theodora against 
the doctrines of the VI. Synods, and for idolatrous conventicles; good 
work of Theodosius I., Theodosius II. and Valentinian (at last, not at 
first), and by Constantine the Great, 6; Constantine’s modesty; he did not 
interfere with the Bishops’ rights, 5, 6; heresy of supposing that any one 
has a just claim to be a Bishop from his possessing tactual succession 
only, if he does not hold to, obey, and enforce the VI. Synods, 7; duty 
of every nation to maintain the Six Synods, 33, note 80; 34, notes 84, 86; 
Christ decides in them through the Universal Episcopate, 487, 488; they 
are superior to any Bishop of Rome, 39, note 94; condemned Honorius, 
2614... see under Church Government; danger of admitting that they can 
err as to facts, 426, note; we must remember that the quoting of one doc- 
ument of a Father and the approving of it as Orthodox does not neces- 
sarily imply an approving of all his other writings as Orthodox, 427, 
note; instances, Ambrose of Milan’s errors and those of Augustine of 
Hippo, zd7d.; we must not infer that, because an Ecumenical Council 
receives and accepts with honor a letter of any bishop of Rome, that it 
accepts any claim of that see to jurisdiction outside of Italy, zbid.; ex- 
amples, Rome’s attempt to get appellate jurisdiction over Carthage and 
the West, note on pages 427, 428. 

Edgar's Variations of Popery; 509. 

Fditio Regia of the Councils; xili., xiv. 

Edward V1.; a blessed Reforming King, xxix. 

Elizabeth, Queen, the greatest of Queens, xxix. 

Ellicott, Bishop; 14, note; interprets Scripture to forbid clerical digamy, idzd. 

Elvira, Council of; about A. D. 305-309 in Spain; forbids pictures in Churches, 
xlvil. 

Emperors, the Roman; deified; blasphemous titles of, 19-21, note 20; Jerome 
against the worship of their images, 19; how the Church regarded the 
Orthodox, 32, note 74; their duty towards the Church and true religion, 
34; call the Third Council, 35-41, 503. 

Empire, its condition made dependent on piety towards God, 33; a righteous 
connection between a Christian state and Christ’s Church, 33. 

English Reformers, on the duty of the civil ruler, xxix., note. 

Epaphroditus, a Reader; 45, 46. 

Ephesus, Ecumenical Council of; see Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius. 
Photius’ account of its Acts, in Century IX., body of work, 1.; how they 
compare with the present Acts, I, 2, 3, 4; were the Acts of the Apostatic 


Index II.—General Index. 605. 
Ole halen 2 Si ee ee ee 


Conventicle put between the Acts of Ephesus in Photius’ day? 4; the 
present arrangement of the Acts, not the original one in all respects, 154, 
note 289; 155, note 292; 208, note 524. The Forematter to Ephesus, was 
it put before the Acts then? 4; dates of the Sessions, 5. The Circular 
Letter and Decree of the Emperors, Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. 
convoking the Metropolitans to the Third Ecumenical Council, 5; who 
the Emperors were, 5; Theodosius 11. acts for both, 5; why? 5; its date; 
41, notes, 101, 102; delay of John of Antioch, 41, note 1οι. Its noble 
stand against the misguided Theodosius II., 17 ,18; opening of the 
Council, 19-22; list of Bishops at; whence they came, 22-29, and note 
57; Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, states before the Third Council 
the facts of the Nestorian Controversy which led to the Synod, 30, 31, 325 
Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, calls for the reading of the Emperor’s Let- 
ter summoning the Council, and asks that it be put in front of the Acts, 
32, 33; Peter the Presbyter of Alexandria reads it, 33-41; Firmus, Bishop. 
of Caesarea, calls upon Memnon of Ephesus to state how long the Council 
had waited for delayers to appear after the date fixed in the imperial 
proclamation, 41; Memnon replies 15 days, 42; Cyril of Alexandria states 
that in the long wait the Bishops had suffered, and some of them had 
fallen sick, and others had died, and he proposes that in accordance with 
their aim in coming to Ephesus, and in compliance with a Second Decree 
of the Emperors, urging a decision, they should go on with the business 
and read the papers pertaining to it, 42, and note C., page 512. Theodotus, 
Bishop of Ancyra, asks that the said reading be postponed, and that they 
proceed to summon Nestorius to appear before the Council, 43; four 
Bishops testify that they summoned him yesterday to appear and that he 
gave a conditional promise that he would come, 44, 45; Flavian of 
Philippi proposes that other Bishops be sent to summon him again, 45; 
three Bishops and a Reader are sent with a document to be read from the 
Council to Nestorius; its text, 45, 46; on their return, Peter, a Presbyter 
of Alexandria, asks them to state the result, 46; the three Bishops say that 
they were not admitted to his presence, but that he said that after all the 
Bishops came together he would meet with them, 46, 47; Flavian, Bishop. 
of Philippi, proposes that a third summons be sent to him with a citation 
to be read, and names four prelates as the summoners; text of the cita- 
tion, 47, 48. ‘Thesummonersreturn. Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
begs them to state what answer they had received. They state that Nes- 
torius would not admit them, that a multitude of soldiers with clubs stood 
before his gate, and that they gave them no kind answer, would not per- 
mit them to stand in the shade, pushed them insolently and at last sent 
them away, telling them that they would receive no other answer even af: 
they waited till evening at the door, and had told them that they had 
orders from Nestorius to permit no one from the Synod to enter, 48, 49 
After those three canonical citations, the Council now commences to. 
examine the dogmas of Nestorius, 49. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, 
states that in giving the three summonses to Nestorius they had done all 


‘606 


Ac I, of Ephesus. 


the Canons called for, but that they were ready over and above to give 
him a fourth, but that as he would not admit the summoners, but had 
kept them without, it was evident he had not a good conscience, and that 
therefore they should proceed to business in accordance with the Canons; 
and proposes that first the Creed of Nicaea be read, to serve as a criterion 
by which to judge the utterances which follow, and to approve or reject 
them, 49, 50. Itis read, 50,51. Then Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
states that he holds in his hands an Epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
to Nestorius on the do¢trinal questions involved, and puts it at the com- 
mand of the Synod, 50; it is Cyril’s Shorter Epistle, 52; Acacius, 
Bishop of Melitine, calls for its reading, 52. It is read, 53-129. In it 
Cyril rebukes Nestorius for starting heresies, condemns his denial of 
the Incarnation, explains the do¢trine of the Economic Appropriation to 
God the Word of the sufferings of the Man put on by Him, shows that it 
does not imply Theopaschitism, as the non-Economic Appropriation 
doctrine would; (he explains it further elsewhere; see pages 237-240, Vol. 
I. of Vicaea in this Set) and denies that we co-worship a Man with the 
Word, 53-120. Attheend of the reading, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
puts the question to the Council whether his Epistle aforesaid is not in 
accordance with the faith of Nicaea and with its Creed, and whether it is 
not correct and blameless, 129; the Council then proceed to vote on that, 
the result of which is that all approve it, and so answer yes to his ques- 
tion, 129-154. Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, asks for the reading of 
Nestorius’ Letter to Cyril, of which the Presbyter Peter had spoken 
towards the beginning of the Act, that the Synod may determine whether 
it agrees with what was set forth at Nicaea, 154; it is read, 155-166; it re- 
peatedly rejects the doctrine of the Incarnation in the plainest terms, as it 
does also the Orthodox do¢trine of the Economic Appropriation of the suf- 
ferings and death of the Man put on by God the Word, so necessary, as 
Cyril elsewhere shows, to avoid the Nestorian worship of Christ’s human- 
ity (see pages 237-240 of Vol. I. of Vzcaea in this Set, and Cyril’s Longer 
Epistle below, including its Anathema XII., and the explanation of it in 
that Epistle). Of course, as Nestorius made Christ a mere man, that is, 
a mere creature, it follows necessarily that his worship of him was what 
Cyril calls it, that is, mere Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), that is, the 
worship of a creature. And so he held, contrary to Cyril’s Epistle above, 
to the co-worship of a man with the Word, for, as we shall see when we 
come to his X.X. Blasphemies, inthe Eighth of them, on page, 461, above, 
Nestorius says, “7 separate the Natures, but I unite the bowing.’’ In his 
Epistle Nestorius perverts the Nicene Creed to make it agree with his 
Anti-Inman heresy, 155-166. 

When the reading of Nestorius’ Epistle is ended, Cyril asks the 
Council, ‘‘ What seems good to this Holy and Great Synod concerning 
the Epistle just read? Does this seem to bein harmony with the Faith 
defined in the Holy Synod of the Holy Fathers assembled aforetime in 
the City of the Nicaeans, or not?’ 166. In response thirty-four of the 


Index IT.—General Index. 607 


chief Bishops give their votes in the negative, each one making some 
brief remarks, and then ‘“‘4// the Bishops’’ burst forth into anathemas 
against Nestorius, his ‘“Zmpious faith,” and his ‘impious doctrine,” and 
all who do not anathematize him, and all who communicate with him, 
166-178. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, calls for the reading of the Letter 
of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, to Nestorius. Peter, the Presbyter of 
Alexandria, reads a Greek translation of it, 179-203. Celestine condemns 
him for ‘“‘plain blasphemies,’ and for preaching ‘‘concerning God the 
Word otherwise than the faith of all holds,’? and as guilty of ‘‘z2nova- 
tions,’? which ‘‘vesult in impiety,’’ 181, 182, 183; for his denial of the 
Incarnation, 184; refers to the two warnings given him by Cyril’s Two 
Epistles, sympathizes with the Orthodox clergy whom Nestorius had 
persecuted, blames him for scattering the Lord’s flock, like a ravening 
wolf, commends Cyril of Alexandria’s course, and warns him that, unless 
within the tenth day from the receipt of Celestine’s Letter, he agrees with 
the doGtrine of the Church of the Romans, and of the Alexandrians, and 
all the Universal Church, and of the Constantinopolitan Church before 
him, (Nestorius), and puts ‘away by a clear and written confession”? his 
“unbelieving novelty and innovation * * * which attempts to separ- 
ate the very things which the Holy Scripture joins together,’ that is, 
Christ’s two Natures, by Incarnating the Divine, God the Word, in the 
human nature, he will be ‘‘cast out from all the communion of the Unt. 
versal Church,’ 183-203. Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, proposes 
to read the Long Letter of Cyril of Alexandria, if the Council command, 
204. Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, orders it to be read and to ‘‘be put into 
the Aéts,’ 205. Peter reads it, 206-358. It gives the true Incarnation 
sense of the Nicene Creed, which it embodies towards the beginning, 
against the perversions of Nestorius, condemns his denial of the Inman, 
his denial of Economic Appropriation, his Man-Worship, his Cannibal- 
ism on the Eucharist, and all his other heresies. As its beginning 
shows, it is from ‘“‘Cyril and the Synod assembled in Alexandria out of 
the Egyptian Diocese,’ 206; though Peter the Presbyter, in introducing 
it, testifies that it was ‘‘written’’ by Cyril, 204; and indeed, it is the master 
hand of the God-aided Cyril, the great Doctor of the Church on the In- 
flesh and the Inman, and the Eucharist, and, with St. Athanasius, one of 
the glorious Duad, the two greatest teachers of the Universal Church for 
the doétrine of Economic Appropriation, for the Prime Tenet that God 
alone is to be worshipped (Matt. iv., 10), and against the Nestorian wor- 
ship of Christ’s separate humanity, and much more, (a fortiori), against the 
worship of any lesser creature, and against Cannibalism in the Eucharist. 
Peter the Presbyter states that the Synodal Letter of Celestine and his 
Council and that of Cyril and his had been sent to Nestorius [at Constan- 
tinople] by four Egyptian Bishops, Theopemptus, Daniel, Potamon and 
Comarius, and he begs that Theopemptus and Daniel then present in the 
Synod be questioned on that matter, 359-366: Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, 
asks them to state whether they delivered the Epistles, 367, 368: Theo- 


508 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


pemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, and Daniel, Bishop of Darnis, reply that they 
had delivered them to Nestorius at his house [at Constantinople] on the 
Lord’s Day after service, before all the clergy and nearly all the men of 
illustrious rank, 369-372. Flavian asks whether he had satisfied the de- 
mands of the Letters, 373. They testify that he arranged to meet them 
on the following day. But, on their going to him then, he refused to re- 
ceive them or to satisfy the demands of the Letters, thatis to giveina 
written renunciation of his heresies, but before the Church he preached 
the same dogmas, and worse ones, and that not only had he taught his 
errors before the Synodal Letters reached him, but he had since he re- 
ceived them and till the present day taught much worse things, 374-384. 
Fidus, Bishop of Joppa, states that Bishops Acacius and Theodotus had 
had discussions with Nestorius since he arrived at Ephesus, and that they 
were in peril from them, and that they can testify that he persists in his 
errors; he asks therefore that they swear on the Gospels which lie before 
them to tell for the credit and confirmation of the Acts what they had 
heard the day before yesterday from Nestorius himself, 385-391. Cyril of 
Alexandria asks Acacius and Theodotus to yield to Fidus’ request and to 
testify as to what they had heard Nestorins say when they disputed with 
him for the right faith at Ephesus, 392-399. They answer and testify in 
effect that at Ephesus they had had discussions with Nestorius in which 
he denied the Incarnation and the dodtrine of the Economic Appropria- 
tion to God the Word of the things of the Man put on by Him, 400-417. 
Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, says that inasmuch as the statement of Theo- 
dotus and Acacius is clear, “12 7s next in order that the opinion which 
our blessed Fathers and Bishops have expressed on the matters before us, 
be read and inserted into the Acts.’’ Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
states, ‘‘We hold in our hands books of the most holy and most consecrated 
Fathers and of Bishops and of different Martyrs, and have chosen a few 
chief passages out of themall; if it seem good to you, we will read them. 
Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Let those also be read and inserted 
[into the Acts.] And they were read,” 417, 418. Then follow three pas- 
sages of Peter, the Martyr, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300-311. They 
plainly teach the do¢trine of the Incarnation, 418-420. Next are read 
three passages of the great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 326- 
373, in which he witnesses for the Incarnation and the dodtrine of the 
Economic Appropriation, 420-423. Next comes a passage from Julius, 
Bishop of Rome A. D. 337-352. It is for the Incarnation and for other 
doctrines afterwards embodied in Cyril’s XII. Anathemas, as can be seen 
by a comparison, and for the Two Natures, 423. 424. Next is read a pas- 
sage of Felix, Bishop of Rome A D. 269-274, which is for the Incarnation, 
and against the doctrine of Two Sons, 424-430. The next passages are 
from Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D., 385-412, Cyril’s uncle. 
They are strong for the Inman, 431-435. | Passage 11 is from Cyprian, 
Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 248-258, and is for the Incarnation and the 
doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 435. Passages 12 and 13 are from 


Index II.—General Index. 609 


Ea ee ΞΒΞΞθοθθθθο οε΄ ον 


Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, A. D. 374-397, andare for the Incarnation, and 
the Two Natures; incidentally he speaks of Eternal Birth, 436-438. Passage 
14 is from Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop A. D. 370-390, and is strong for the 
Incarnation, the two perfect Natures of the Son, and against the error of His 
adoption to Sonship after his resurrection from the dead, 438-444. Pas- 
sage 15 is from Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in the First Cappa- 
docia, A. D. 371-379, and is for the Inman and the do¢trine of Economic 
Appropriation, 444, 445. Passage 16 is from Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, 
A. D. 372 to about 395, and is for the Inman and the do¢trine of Economic 
Appropriation, 445, 446. Passages 17, 18 and τὸ are from Atticus, Bishop 
of Constantinople, A. D. 406-426, and testify clearly for the Incarnation; 
and Economic Appropriation, on this latter doctrine ascribing Economic- 
ally death to God the Word, in his flesh like Cyril’s Anathema XII., 446- 
448. Passages 20 and 21, the last of all these quotations from the Fath- 
ers, are for the Inman, for the Worship of God the Word in the Man 
and for the Economic Appropriation, 448, 449. Peter, the Presbyter of 
Alexandria, said to the Council, ‘‘ We have in our hands books also of the 
blasphemies of * * * Nestorius, from one book of which we have chos- 
en out short Chapters, which if it please this Holy Synod, we will read. 
Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Let them be read, and be inserted to 
show [the fairness and] the good faith of the Christian Acts. And all 
the Bishops said in like manner, We all say the same,” 449. Next fol- 
low 20 Passages of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. They contain clear 
proofs of his denial of the Incarnation, and of the doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation, and of his assertion of the heresy and paganism of the 
relative worship of Christ’s separate humanity, a mere creature, which 
Cyril brands as Man-Wership (ἀνθρωπολατρεία in his own word for it), and 
his assertion also of the eating of Christ’s real flesh in the Lord’s Supper, 
which Cyril brands as Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγίᾳ is his own term for it), 
and his other heresies which are specified more fully in note 529-551 in 
this volume, 450-479. At the end of the reading of the 20 Blasphemies, 
Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, calls the attention of the Council 
to the fact that in those Passages Nestorius confesses the novelty of 
his do¢trines. ‘‘Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Since the things 
said by Nestorius are HORRIBLE AND BLASPHEMOUS, and our ears 
do not endure to be pollnted by them any longer, let every part of his 
BLASPHEMY be inserted in the Acts for an ACCUSATION against him 
who has taught those things.’’ Then Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
tells the Synod that Capreolus, Metropolitan of Carthage, has written 
by Besula, a Deacon, an Epistle to the Holy Synod, which, if they 
command, he will read, and will read also the Greek translation 
OF ts) Latin) > He. reads it: Capreolus begins by expressing a 
wish that the state of affairs might permit the North African Council 
to meet from all its provinces and to send a delegation of Bishops to 
the Ecumenical Synod, but says that it was impossible owing to the Van- 
dal Arian invasion. Besides, the Imperial Letter summoning to the Ecu- 


610 


Act 1. of Fphesus: 


menical Synod did not reach them till the days of Pask, when an interval 
of hardly two months remained before its assembling. Hesends however 
Besula, a Deacon, with that Letter of excuse; urges them to oppose all er- 
rors, warns them against the Pelagian heresy which had been crushed in 
the West, and urges them to regard the controversy on it as settled and. 
not to be reopened, and exhorts them to keep the faith as it had come 
down from the past, and again excusing the unavoidable absence of the 
Africans, ends, 481-486. Cyril of Alexandria suggests that the Letter be 
inserted into the Act-Records to show their good faith, ‘‘ For he [Capre- 
olus] wishes on the one hand, the ancient dogmas of the faith to be con- 
firmed, and, on the other, those things which are novel and absurdly in- 
vented and impiously said to be disapproved and cast out,’’ 486. ‘“‘ AlZ 
the Bishops shouted out, These are the voices of all! We all say these 
things! This is the wish of all!’’ (486). The Council then pass sentence 
of deposition on Nestorius, recounting in it the fact that he had refused 
to obey their summons, and to receive their messengers, the Bishops sent 
to him; and that thereafter they had examined his impieties, and had 

found out in regard to him, both from his letters and writings and from 
the things lately said by him at Ephesus, and testified to, ‘‘that he thinks 
and preaches impiously,;’’ and that inasmuch as they are pressed by the 
Canons and by the Epistle aforesaid of Celestine of Rome, they had come, 

often weeping, to the sad sentence against him. ‘‘Therefore,’’ they add, 

‘four Lord Jesus Anointed Who has been blasphemed by him, has de- 
creed, thorough the present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is 
an alien from the Episcopal dignity and from every Priestly assembly,’’ 

486-488. Then follow the subscriptions of the Bishops. At the end of 
them we read: ‘‘ And the rest of the Bishops who came to the Holy Syn- 
od after those [above named] had subscribed the deposition of Nestorius, 

subscribed the forgoing sentence. So the Bishops who deposed Nestorius 

himself are more than two hundred in number. For some were place- 

holders for other Bishops who were not able to come to the Metropolis of 
the Ephesians.’’ Next comes “ 7he Sentence of Deposition sent to him 

on the day after his deposition. The Holy Synod gathered by God’s 

grace and the decree of our most religious and Christ-loving Emperors in 

the Metropolis of the Ephesians, sendeth [what here followeth] to Nes- 

torius, a new Judas: 


Know that thou, thyself, on account of thy blasphemous preachings 
and thy disobedience to the Canons, wast deposed by the Holy Synod in 
accordance with the behests of the Church Canons on the twenty-second 
of the present month of June, and that thou art an alien from every ec- 
clesiastical grade. 


On the day following the deposition of the same Nestorius, that mis- 
sive was sent to him by the Holy Synod.’’ And so Act I. of Ephesus and 
the text in this volume end. Number of Bishops who subscribed to its 
Act 1.3; 503. See the Zzs¢s of Bishops in Index I. to this work, on pages. 


Index IT.—General Index. 611 


553-508. What was probably done between the formal Sessions of the 
Council; note 1146, page 504. 

Ephesus, A. Ὁ. 431; Preface, i. Its ACtI. is about halfthe Minutes; first translated 
into English in this work; its Greek; its Latin version; Ephesus and 
Cyril of Alexandria much misrepresented; example, the expression 
Bringer Forth of God; both, as well as the Fifth Council, opposed and 
condemned all creature worship and Consubstantiation and Transubstan- 
tiation more fully than the Reformers did; their penalty against those 
guilty of those errors, i.-iv. We must understand and hold to the VI. 
Synods. Their value on the Romish and Greek Controversy, Preface 
ii.; what they are, /ztrod., page v.: Ephesus, its Authority and Reception, 
tid. v.-x1.; this Translation of tt, xtii.; form in which this work 
is published, xili.; basis from which to translate it, xiii, and xiv.; 
misconceptions on Ephesus, vi.-ix.; sympathies, position and action 
of each of the greatest sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, 
Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., on the Nestorian controversy, note 502, 
pages 197-201; Ephesus, 202, note 514; 203, note 515. Five documents 
of Cyril of Alexandria which must have powerfully influenced 
the Council against Nestorius’ denial of the Inman, and against 
his Man-Worship; and three of which must have influenced them 
against his Cannibalism on the Eucharist, etc., 270-276, note; Ephesus 
condemus Nestorius, ix.; decides against the claim of Rome to Appellate 
Jurisdiction in Latin Africa, xlix.;see Councils of Carthage and Africa. 
Ephesus condemus saint worship, and creature invocation, etc., which 
have been attributed rightly or wrongly to Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory 
of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, 357-359; compare 52, note. 

Ephesus; blamelessness of the Council in going on with its business after wait- 
ing 15 days for delayers, 41, notes; the Forematter to its Acts, when made, 
53; its Definition and Canons define Nestorius’ errors, 114, note; the Ecu- 
menical Council represented the whole Church; the Conventicle of 
John of Antioch and his friends there, only a small fragment of it, 486, 
note 1040; spotless and rational conduct of the Third World Council in 
dealing with Nestorius; his blameworthy and unreasonable ccurse; note: 
1046, pages 487, 488, 489; heresies for which he was condemned, 767d. 
Not Celestine of Rome alone, not Cyril of Alexandria alone, but the ma-. 

' jority of the Bishops in the Third Ecumenical Council gave the ‘inal. 
decisions at Ephesus, 489, note 1047. 

Ephesus, Text leaps; lv. 

Ephesus, Location and Subject Matter of the most important Notes on; lv.-lviii. 

Ephesus, Location of Notes which do not begin on the Page to which they be- 
long; lix.-lxi. 

Ephesus; aim of this translation, lvi.; the translator alone responsible for 
opinions expressed in the notes or text outside of the translation, liii.; 
where some manuscripts of Ephesus may be found, lxxxi. Table of Con- 
tents of this volume, 1xxxii.-lxxxix. Great variations in Latin transla- 
tions, 489, note 1047; 490, note 1049, etc. 


612 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Epiphanius, St.; tears up an image in a church because it is wrong to put such 
a thing there, xlvii., note; compare Epiphanius in the General Index to 
Vol. 1. of Nicaea; ascribes a Virgin-Mary-Worshipping heresy to the Devil, 
and to the folly of women, xx., and well says on that matter, “Let Mary 
be in honor; but let the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be bowed 
to. Let no one bow to Mary,’ 184, note 438. 


Epiphany, was the old Trinity Day, 417, note 720. 


Episcopacy Heresy; that is Anti-Six-Councils’ recognition of Ecumenically con- 
demned orders as valid, 7; 40, note 95. 


Episcopate, the; is the Apostolate, ix. 


Eternal Birth; Ambrose and the Alexandrian School teach it; 436, text, and 
note 791 there; the bulk of the Ante-Nicene Writers, and the VI. Synods 
of the Whole Church deny it; the Six Councils to be followed, note 791: 
Felix’s expression Eternal Son, 1bid. 


Eucharist; See under Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresies 4 and 5. See also 
under Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, and under Theodoret, and 
Cannibalism, and Ambrose of Milan. 

Two Nature Transubstantiation, and Two Nature Consubstantiation, 
and onenature Consubstantiation, and worship ofthe alleged real presence 
of the Divinity or humanity of Christ there, and worship of the bread 
and wine before Consecration or after, and all other heresies on the 
Eucharist condemned by St. Cyril and by Ephesus, Preface, ii., 111., iv., _ 
xx., xxxix.; 106, 107, note; all this guards against idolatry in the rite, 
xxxix.; the idolatrous Conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, is for the error 
of the real, the substance presence, and so contradicts the Third 
Council, xlix. 

The doctrine of Ephesus is the Real Absence of the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity, and the real absence of His humanity from the 
Eucharist, xxxix.; 262, note, and subnote “‘dd.’’,; Alexandria much sounder 
than Syria on the Eucharist in Cyril’s day, xx; Nestorius’ Blasphemy 
18 on the Christian Eucharist, pages 472-474, text and notes there; con- 
demned by Ephesus, Preface, iii.; see under Nestorius and his Heresies, 
Nos. 4 and5; and “Note E., On Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18 on pages 
472-474 above, and on its absurd and blasphemous consequences,’’ pages 
517 to 529. Every man is responsible for the necessary logical results of 
his premises, 517; Nestorius, supposing Cyril to be an Apollinarian or a 
Monophysite, and so to deny to Christ any humanity now, concludes that 
he must hold to eating Christ’s Divinity alone in the Eucharist, an 
absurdity and blasphemy; he (Nestorius) contends that we eat his human- 
ity alone, 518; in response Cyril denies that we eat Christ’s Divinity or 
humanity, and charges, justly, Nestorius with holding, on his own con- 
fession, to Cannibalism, and teaches, in effect, that Nestorius’ and his 
disciple Theodoret’s worship of Christ’s humanity in the rite is Man-Wor- 
ship, thatis the worship of a creature, 519; hence Nestorius’ view results in 
three blasphemies, all of them the outcome of the Nestorian denial of the 


Index IT.—General Index. 613 


Incarnation, from which the Orthodox dodtrineis entirely free, that is, 1, 
the worship of the bread and wine, just mentioned, as Christ’s separate 
humanity, which is justly condemned as Man-Worship by Cyril and the 
Third Ecumenical Council approving him; and, 2, what they both brand 
as Cannibalism ( Ανθρωποφαγία); and, 3, the absurdity, contrary to Acts 
iii., 21, of the Ubiquity of Christ’s body or of continuous and millions of 
multiplications of it. That is the ascribing to a mere creature of some 
thing which practically amounts to a prerogative attribute of God, that is 
the almost omnipresence of Christ’s humanity. Remarkably enough 
there are to-day in the Anglican Communion hundreds, possibly a thous- 
and or more clergy, who trample under their feet the clear and precise 
statements of their own Church in the Dodtrinal Declaration at the end of 
theirown excellent Communion Office that ‘‘7he natural body and blood of 
our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth 
of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one.” And 
Christ’s risen body has jlesh and bones (Luke xxiv., 39), so that to eat it 
would be what St. Cyril calls justly Cannibalism; see under ‘‘ Cannibal- 
7sm’’ in this Index. Aye, it is so literally a body that its hands and feet 
can be seen, and it can be handled and seen (Luke χχίν., 36-44; John 
XxX., I9-29); and it could and did eat (Luke xxiv., 41, 42, 43; and 
Acts x., 40, 41); and Christ promised to drink the fruit of the vine 
hereafter in the Kingdom of His Father with His Apostles (Matt. xxvi., 
29, and Mark xiy., 25); so thoroughly is Christ’s present spiritual body 
a body! so that it will not do to try and break the force of the Church of 
England’s accusation of Cannibalism, and to dodge and evade it by assert- 
ing, as does the false and traitorous Puseyite and Kebleite heretic, that he 
is not guilty of Cannibalism and does not come under the anathema of 
Cyril and of the Third Synod of the whole Church, nor under 
the condemnation of the Eucharistic Declaration at the end of 
the Anglican Church Communion Office, because he does not eat Christ’s 
natural body, but only his risen and spiritual body. For even it has 
“flesh and bones’? (Luke xxiv., 36-44). It was “‘vaised a Spiritual 
body,’ I. Cor. xv., 44, and so was spiritua* when it had “" ‘flesh and bones.” 
Absurdities and blasphemies which are the necessary and logical outcome 
of the Roman Transubstantiation: 

1. It contradicts the teachings of the Third Ecumenical Council, and 
therefore makes it fallible and heretical, though Rome teaches the doc- 
trine of the infallibility of the said Synod and of every other Ecumen- 
ical Synod; 520. 

2. Contrary to Acts 11, 27, 31, it teaches that Christ’s flesh may 
become corrupt, 520; quotation from the Roman Missal which confesses 
that Christ’s transubstantiated flesh can become rotten! 521; the vomited 
Host to be separated from the rest of the vomit and eaten again! 521; 
Lewis’ remark on that rubric, 521; according to one Romish writer there 
is a retransubstantiation of the actual flesh and blood of Christ back again 
into wafer and wine! 521. Prof. Schaff on such scholastic follies as 


614 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


.--.-- π᾿’ -------ο-ς-ς--.οςςς͵ς — — ee 


whether an angel could dance on the point of a needle, and what effect 
the sacrament would have on a mouse, 522. 

3. Transubstantiation results in creating about 20,000,000 whole Sec- 
ond Persons of the Trinity on some great day, Pask for instance, 522; 
summary of the heresies of the Latins and also those of the Greeks, on 
the Eucharist; they both in fact reject the decisions of the Third World 
Synod on it, 522; (A.) as to the Latin views; they are stated, 523; (B.) as 
to those of the Greeks; Cyril Lucar came very near to the Third Coun- 
cil view, though he used some later terms of the Scholastic theology, 523- 
525; John Mason Neale’s infamous and traitorous remarks regarding him, 
523, 524; Cyril Lucar was foully plotted against and murdered, 524; 
his noble testimony against what were in reality departures from the doc- 
trine of the Six Synods, 524; wretched corruptions in the Greek Church 
in his day and now, and God’s curses on them, 524, 525. It will reform 
and return to the VI. Synods, 524. Other Greek Confessions teach the 
Greek form of Transubstantiation, that is Peter Mogila’s, who became 
Metropolitan of Kieff, A. D. 1632, and that of Dositheus of Jerusalem, 
A. D. 1672; 525; both teach the worship of the Host, 525; so teaches a 
Synod of Constantinople A. D. 1672: the Confession of Metrophanes well 
argues for infant communion, 525; Dositheus’ idea of Transubstantiation, 
525; the Greeks multiply, like the Latins, the Second Person of the Trin- 
ity, 525; absurd results of the heresy of Concomitance in the Lord’s Sup- 
per; Trent quoted, 525-527; that doctrine and its blasphemous results con- 
demned both by Cyril and Nestorius, 527; how the error of Concomitance 
took its rise, 527, text and subnote ‘‘a,”’ its results more absurd and un- 
scriptural than Tetradism, 527, 528; what they are, 77d. Nestorius’ Eu- 
charistical Blasphemy (Blasphemy 18) is therefore well included in the 
Sentence of Deposition passed on him by the Third Ecumenical Council, 
among what it expressly terms his ‘‘d/asphemous preachings,’’ for, like 
the rest, it is taken from his ‘‘Homilies;” and that Sentence well says 
that he ‘‘preaches impiously,”’ 533, 504, 486-488; further reférences on 
this matter, 488 note, and 533-549. 

How denial of the Inman, and Apollinarian, and Monophysite, 
and Nestorian errors regarding that primary and fundamental tenet 
result in worshipping Christ; as, for instance, in the case of the Timo- 
theans and the Monophysites, in worshipping only one Nature of Christ, 
and that the Divine; and in the case of the Valentinians, and the Nes- 
torians, in worshipping both Natures, the Divine adsolutely and the 
human relatively only, the Nestorians worshipping all His perfect human- 
ity relatively, and the Valentinians worshipping only two parts of it, that 
is, the body and soul, for they denied it a mind; and how differences as to 
worshipping only one or two Natures in Christ affect men’s views as to the 
worship of Christ’s humanity in the Eucharist, 103-107, note; Theodoret 
held to one nature Consubstantiation in the Eucharist, that is that of His 
humanity, with the bread and wine, and to the worship of that one nature 
as if there present, 107, note. George Stanley Faber’s mistake in quot- 


Index If, —General Index. 615 
——_ ee 
ing him as Orthodox, 107, note. The Christian doctrine of the Unbloody 
Sacrifice and of the Priesthood of the Christian Ministry and people 
shown from Scripture as against the error of a literal sacrifice of blood 
held to by the Transubstantiationist, and the Consubstantiationist, note 
599, pages 229, 230, 231, and note 606, page 255, and subnote ‘‘a@’ there; 
called, Eucharist, that is Thanksgiving, and Communion, and Blessing; 
ibid.; the spiritual Sacrifice without blood and that of the Christian Priest- 
hood, were the do¢trines of the early Church; references in proof to the 
old spurious work under the name of Barnabas, and to the genuine writ- 
ings of Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irenzeus, Clement of 
Alexandria, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, 231-238. It is 
in Cyril’s Longer Epistle, which was approved by the T hird Council, and 
so was approved with it by Ephesus. 

Nestorius’ assertion of one nature Consubstantiation, and the eating 
of Christ’s real flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper, and their worship 
there by the Nestorians are expressly or impliedly condemned in that doc- 
ument and consequently by the whole Church at Ephesus, note on pages 
231-238. Irenzeus denies ‘‘ the godly Communion” * * * of “Christs 
blood and body * * * tobereally blood and flesh,” 234, note; and says 
that, ““ The oblation of the Eucharist is nota fleshly one, but a spiritual 
one, and by that fact is pure,” 235, note; which implies that the receiving 
of flesh would make it zzpure, and shows that after the oblation in the 
Gallican Church of his day and after the prayer for the Holy Ghost to 
“ show forth this Sacrifice, the leavened bread the body of the Christ, and 
the cup the blood of the Christ,” the elements were still deemed Anéitypes, 
and hence were not transubstantiated, 235, note; 269, note; indeed it is 
the partaking of the Antitypes which is a means of receiving blessings, 
for the Holy Spirit is prayed for to “‘show forth this sacrifice, the 
leavened bread the body of the Christ, and the cup the blood of 
the Christ, in order that the partakers of these Antitypes may 
obtain remission of sins and life eternal,’? 235, note; Chrysostom 
well sets forth, as follows, the doctrine of the New Testament, 
which is well embodied in Article XXXI. of the Anglican Church, 
εἰ The sacrifice 15 [but] one. There is no other sacrifice, but we 
always perform the same one, or rather we perform a remembrance of a 
sacrifice,’ 235, note. He rebukes the evil custom of communing only 
once a year, 7b7d.,; the ancients communicated often, 235, 236, note; St. 
Cyril of Alexandria teaches that the doctrine of Nestorius which turns the 
spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist into a fleshly one, and makes it an eating 
of literal flesh there is an uzlearnedly doing “away with the force of the 
mystery,” and ‘for that very reason and very justly has this Anathema- 
tism [XI.] been made’’ 236, note; 268, note and sub-note ‘‘yy.’’; against 
those who hold that Cannibalism, as he elsewhere terms it, note on pages 
236 and 237. And that Anathematism and the whole Epistle of Cyril in 
which it stands and of which it forms part were made part of the faith of 
the Universal Church by the Third Ecumenical Council, 237, note; Cyril 


610 


Act Ὁ ΟΕ ΕΣ ΤΣ. 


ascribes the fact that the Jews understood literally Christ’s words in John 
vi., 53, ‘“Lxcept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, 
ye have no life in you,” to “their very great lack of learning,” and he 
blames them because, ‘‘they supposed that they were called to some SAV- 
AGENESS BEFITTING A WILD ANIMAL, AS THOUGH THEY WERE COM- 
MANDED INHUMANLY TO EAT FLESH AND TO SUP UP BLOOD, AND 
[as though they were] TO BE COMPELLED TO DO THINGS WHICH ARE 
HORRIBLE EVEN TO HEAR OF. FOR THEY KNEW NOT THE BEAUTY OF 
THE MYSTERY AND THAT MOST BEAUTIFUL ECONOMY DEVISED FOR IT,’’ 
270, note. Cyril teaches that bread and wine are on our altars, not flesH 
and blood, and that through them life is imparted to us; for he writes: 
“We have these things for a life-giving Blessing as in both bread and 
wine in order that we may not be struck numb [with horror] by seeing 
flesh and blood lying before us on the holy tables of the Churches. For 
God accomodating Himself to our weaknesses SENDS THE POWER OF 
LIFE INTO THE THINGS WHICH LIE BEFORE US AND CHANGES THEM TO 
THE ENERGY OF HIS OWN LIFE,’’ 269, note; the heresiarchs and traitors 
Pusey and Keble were idolaters on the Eucharist, though they held to 
two-Nature Consubstantiation, zbzd., what Cyrilcalls Cannibalism on the 
Eucharist has generally been associated with image worship and cross 
worship and with creature invocation; whereas Cyril’s view against those 
errors has generally been maintained by those who worshipped God alone, 
ibid. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions, not genuine but ancient, 
are for the doctrine of the Unbloody and Spiritual Sacrifice, not the 
fleshly, and for the Christian Spiritual Priesthood, 237, 238. So isa 
place in the Greek Liturgy called St. Basil’s, 238, note; and so are in 
effect, the English, the Scottish, and the Anglo-American Eucharistic 
Offices, though bloody sacrifice should be put into them; excellence of 
the Anglican Liturgy in setting forth the soleness of Christ’s One Sacri- 
fice for sins forever, 2614. Cyril’s Ecumenically approved profession 
of the Unbloody Sacrifice quoted, 236, note; references to Vol. I. of 
Nicaea on the Eucharist, 237, note; Eucharist called Secret Blessings, 
236, text, and note 600, page 238; secrecy of Baptism and the Lord’s Sup- 
per in the early Church; Greek use of JZystery where we say Sacrament; 
Disciplina Arcani, that is Discipline of the Secret, Romish mis-state- 
ments on; instance of Greek Secrecy in administering Baptism, note 600, 
pages 238, 239; the Nestorians as a result of their rejection of the Incarnation 
and of their holding to a mere Relative Indwelling of God the Word’s 
humanity, not by His divine Substance, but by His Spirit only in the. 
same sense as he indwelt the Prophets by It, (I. Peter i., 11.), and from 
their holding to the error that the Eucharist is the real flesh and the real 
blood of Christ, held also that Christ’s Divinity was not in that real flesh 
and blood but only indwelt them relatively by His Spirit; Cyril de- 
nounces that heresy of Relative Indwelling, 238-241, text, and notes 
601-605; and their assertion of a real presence even of Christ’s real flesh 
and blood there, and of the Nestorian Cannibalism of eating them there 


Index I1.—General Index. 617 


a SS a ΉΞΞΞΕΣ 


note 606, pages 240-313; he says of the Eucharist, ‘We do not receive at 
as common flesh. God forbid! Nor moreover do we receive tt as the 
flesh of a Man sanctified and cojoined with the Word in a unity of dig- 
nity, that ts as the flesh of a man who has a [mere] godly indwelling, but 
as being truly life producing and [as] a peculiar flesh of the Word Him- 
self * * * so that even though He says tous, Verily, Verily, I say 
unto you, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, 
we do not reckon tt to be the flesh of a Man, like one of us, for how will 
the flesh of a Man be life-producing by its own nature,’ etc., 238-240. 
Cyril was opposed to Cannibal views on the Eucharist, 240, note 606; 262, 
note, and sub-note ‘‘dd;’’ he, St. Cyprian, Pope Innocent I., and Augustine 
of Hippo held to Infant Communion as did the whole Church for 800 years 
after Christ, 7jzd.; some or all of the Ancients seem to have deemed it 
necessary to salvation, note 606; Bp. Bedel also held to infant com- 
munion, zd7d., it is Scriptural and logical, zbzd.; every infant dying 
without it dies excommunicate, zbzd.,; the denial of Infant Communion 
leads to the denial of Infant Baptism, 241, note; chief places of Cyril, 
and of Nestorius on the Eucharist, zbzd.; I. how far they agreed on the 
Lord’s Supper; (A.), they used the leavened bread, and the mingled cup, 
242, note; (B.), they gave both kinds to the people as well as to the clergy, 
that is they gave to every one first the bread separately into his hand and 
then the cup separately into his hand, 242-248, note; (C.), the people 
received both kinds standing, as they had from the beginning, note 
on pages 243-248; (D.), Infants as well as all others received the 
Communion in both kinds, 248, note; (E), Both Cyril and Nestorius 
consecrated the Zhanksgiving (Evyapiotia) in both kinds on a table 
after the example of Christ and His Apostles; note on pages 
248-250; (F). (a). As to the alleged real presence of the actual 
Substance of Christ’s Divinity on the Holy Table in the Eucharistic 
rite, St. Cyril plainly denies it, and I think that Nestorius agrees with 
him; (b). Both St. Cyril and Nestorius very plainly deny any eating of 
the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, 250-254; Nestorius takes St. Cyril 
for an Apollinarian, and so to deny any humanity now to Christ, and so 
to assert an eating of the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist; 
Cyril denies both charges, 7b7d.; according to Cyril approved at Ephesus, 
there is nothing in the Eucharist to worship, but Nestorius, by denying 
the reality of the Inman, fell into the idolatry of worshipping Christ’s 
separate humanity there, 252, note; and then after making a god of that 
humanity by worshipping it as Athanasius and Cyril teach, (see under 
Bowing and Prayer in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, 
and under Bowing and Worship in this vol.), he proceeds next to eat his 
new Tetradic god (see under 7e/vadism and Fourism in this Index). For 
as Cyril writes on page 89, note, ‘‘ This here superfluous fellow’ [Nestor- 
ins] ‘ADDS A WORSHIPPED MAN TO THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTIAIL, 
TRINITY AND IS NOT ASHAMED,”’’ and is, as Cyril says on page go, ‘‘con- 
Jessedly A WORSHIPPER OF A MAN,”’ and so, as he writes on page 91, Nes- 


618 


Ad I. of Ephesus. 


torius has ‘‘ exhibited to us a mew god as a sort of FOURTH PERSON 
AFTER THE HOLY TRINITY,’’ and hence there adds to him, ‘‘ Hast THou 
NOT SHUDDERED [at the thought of worshipping] ACOMMON MAN WHEN 
THOU CONTRIVEDST WORSHIP TO THAT CREATURE. ARE WE THEN HELD 
FAST IN THE ANCIENT SNARES [of creature worship] ?’’ On page 92, 
Cyril adds to him, ‘‘Szmce we have been ransomed from the ancient 
deceit’? [the sin of worshipping creatures, the sin of the heathen], ‘‘ AND 
HAVE REFUSED AS A BLASPHEMOUS THING TO WORSHIP THE CREATURE, 
WHY DOST THOU WHELM US AGAIN IN THE ANCIENT SINS AND MAKE US 
WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN?’”’ Qn page 94, Cyril tells us that, according to 
Nestorius, Christ’s humanity, a mere creature, has been ‘‘MADE A COM- 
PLEMENT OF THE TRINITY AND IN NATURE EQUAL ToIT.’? See much 
more of the same tenor in the same note 183, especially pages 79-102, 
indeed the whole note. But Nestorius, as has just been said, went further 
and, after making that creature God, ate him, and, as Cyril writes, was 
guilty of Cannibalism, (see in this Index under Cannibalism). Humorous 
claim of E. B. Pusey, the Nestorianizer on the Eucharist, to follow Cyril, ᾿ 
252, note; summary of Cyril’s reply to the charge of Nestorius that he 
(Cyril) ate Divinity in the Lord’s Supper, 253 note; (a.), Fassages of St. 
Cyril of Alexandria, in which he teaches against Nestorius that we do 
not eat the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, 253, note; four passages 
of Cyril quoted in proof of that statement, 253, 254. 

(b.) Passages of St. Cyrilof Alexandria in which he denies the real 
presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the Eucharist, that 15 in 
the Thanksgiving, as Eucharist means, 254-256; (c.) he denies that we 
receive in the Eucharist the Divine Substance of God the Word, that is 
the Substance of His Divinity, 256-258; Cyril teaches that Christ is in us 
in the Eucharist not by the Swzdstance of his Divinity or humanity, but 
relatively, that is by His Spirit only, 256-258; that is that in that sense we 
relatively partake of him, 256-260, note, and 264, note; two ways in which 
Christ isin us, 7b7d., and page 261; 1100 years before the merely Latin 
Council of Trent, the Third Synod of the whole Church defined that we 
do not eat God with our mouths, 259. 

We come now, II., to mention the points of difference between Cyril 
and Nestorius on the Eucharist, that is, (G.), on the questions as to the 
veal presence of the actual human flesh and human blood of Christ in 
the Lord’s Supper, of their being eaten there, and of their being wor- 
shipped there, 260 note; Passages in which St. Cyril denounces what he 
terms the Cannibalism of Nestorius’ heresy of eating aciual human flesh 
and drinking actual human blood in the Lora’s Supper, 261-276; the 
documents containing his teaching on the Lord’s Supper, zd7d., es- 
pecially pages 270-276. Cyril followed the traditional anti-cannibalistic 
view of the writers of the Alexandrian School, 274-276; Athanasius also 
had, 7d7d., and Cyril professed to agree with him in all things, zdzd., in 
what sense Cyril speaks of the bread and wince as not a type, 269, note; 
other Fathers and some Ante-Nicene Writers on that, z6zd.; refutes Nes- 


Index Il.—General Index. 619 


nn 


torius’ Blasphemy 18, which is on the Eucharist, and which teaches one 
nature real presence, one nature Consubstantiation, and the Cannibalism 
of eating that one nature, Christ’s humanity, 272-274, note and sub-notes; 
Cyril denies also that we eat Christ’s Divinity, 274, note ‘‘y.’? So teaches 
_ Athanasius Whom Cyril professes to follow; 274-276. Tosum up as to 
the worship of God the Word in the Eucharist; Cyril teaches, 1, that 
the Substance of Christ’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the Lord’s 
Supper; nor, 2, is it received by the mouth there; nor, 3, is it in us at 
any time, 276, note. Zhe difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius as to 
the worship of the Eucharist, 276; as Cyril held that the Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity, as we see above, is not on the Holy Table nor eaten in 
the Eucharist, therefore according to his teaching, adopted by the whole 
Church at Ephesus, there is nothing to worship in the Eucharist, for even 
were the separate humanity of Christ, as the Nestorians asserted, really 
present there, it could not, according to Cyril and Ephesus, be worshipped, 
because it is a mere creature, and to worship it would be mere Creature- 
Service, 276. But Cyril and Ephesus teach the real absence both of the 
Substance of Christ’s Divinity from the rite, and the real absence of the 
substance of His humanity from it, 276; and that all worship of Christ's 
separate humanity is Man-Worship and Creature-Worship, and soul des- 
troying, zjzd. Nestorius agreed with Cyril as to the real absence of 
Christ’s Divinity from the Sacrament, and as to Its not being eaten there, 
but held to the real presence of the body and blood there, and to their 
worship there relatively to God the Word, and to their being really eaten 
there, which St. Cyril brands as Cannibalism, 276, 277, 278; Theodoret, Nes- 
torius’ champion, is fuller than Nestorius in asserting the worship of the 
bread and wine after consecration, and held like him, his master, to the 
real presence of Christ’s humanity there, and to their being really eaten 
there; 277; proofs from Theodoret’s writings on all those points, of the 
difference between on the one hand St. Cyril and the Universal Church 
which approved his teaching at Ephesus, and, on the other hand, 
Nestorius and Theodoret, with quotations from the Orthodox and from 
the heretics, 277-293; a summing up of Cyril’s doctrine against 
Nestorius, 293; reasonableness and beauty of Cyril’s and the Uni- 
versal Church's dodétrine as compared with all Consubstantiation 
and Transubstantiation isms with their absurd discussions and con- 
sequences, such as the Stercorian controversy, etc., 293-294. The 
two Transubstantiation views and how they differ from the Orthodox, 
294; how the Greek Transubstantiation and the Latin irreconcilably con- 
tradict and mutually destroy each other, 294. The three Consubstan- 
tiation isms, how they all contradi& the Real Substances-Absence doc- 
trine of the Universal Church and each other, 294-297; anti-rubrical 
reservation of the Eucharist by some traitorous clergy of the Anglican 
Communion for purposes of idolatry, 297; duty of the Anglican Bishops 
in every such case towards such Presbyters, and towards such of their own 
Prelates as share that idolatry or suffer such God-angering crimes, 2973 


620 


Act Ll, of Ephesus. 


how the ancients reje¢ted such Bishops, and how the VI. Ecumenical 
Councils deposed such creature worshipping and criminal Prelates and 
clerics, 297-299. Two Real Absence views which come nearer the doc- 
trine of Cyril and of the Universal Church, 1, the Zwinglian, and, 2, the 
Calvinistic, 300; to what extent they differ from it and from each other, 
300; an utterance of John Henry Blunt, the idolatrizer, that there are 
‘only two rational opinions’ * * * on the Lord’s Supper, “ὦ veal 
presence or a real absence,’ 300; the Universal Church at Ephesus and 
St. Cyril, who was under God its leader, teach that there is only one, the 
veal absence of both Substances doctrine, 300; the expression veal presence ; 
different senses of it, 301; when understood as it generally is to assert the 
real presence of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the rite of the 
Eucharist, or the real presence of the substance of his humanity there, or 
the real presence of both Substances there, it is Ecumenically condemned 
and must not be used, 301; reason why it has been incautiously used by a 
few Anglicans, 302; was condemned and rejected in the XLII. Articles of 
the Church of England, and is now condemned formally by the English 
Church in a Cyrillian and Ephesine and excellent Declaration at the end 
of the Communion Office, 302, subnote ‘‘a.’’ Harold Browne on its his- 
tory, 7014., that Declaration wrongly left out of the American Book, 
ibid.; its wording, zbzd.; it condemns the worship of Christ’s natural 
body in the rite as “IDOLATRY TO BE ABHORRED OF ALL, FAITHFUL 
CHRISTIANS,’’ 302, subnote ‘‘a,’’ an expression in the Catechism which is 
late and needs mending, 303, subnote ‘‘a,;’? Goode’s remark as to the 


. cause of the non-use of the expression veal presence by some Anglicans 


and its use by others, zd7d.,; the testimony of ‘‘Dr. Aldrich, Dean of Christ 
Church in 1687,’’ that it is not mentioned in any of the Formularies of the 
Church of England except to be condemned, 304, subnote “‘a,’”’ the Angli- 
can Reformers agree with the VI. Synods in not using the expression, 
304, subnote ‘‘a,’’ cavil of idolatrizers in the Church of England on the 
words ‘‘zatural body’’ in the Declaration at the end of the English Com- 
munion Service, answered, subnote on pages 304-306; see also in this 
Article, above; another objection of the idolatrizers from John xx., 19, 
26, answered, 306, subnote ‘“‘a.’”’ But, caution, we must never quote 
Theodoret’s utterances as being Orthodox on the Eucharist, but only as 
teaching his own Ecumenically condemned one nature Consubstantia- 
tion, and one nature relative-worship there, note on pages 303-306; 
instances of misquoting his heretical language; 1, Kenrick quotes it as 
favoring Transubstantiation, which it really contradicts and condemns, 
306, note, and subnote “ὁ. Kenrick’s mistakes or wilful perversions in 
quoting Cyril, and a Council of Alexandria, subnote ‘‘d,’? pages 306-3103; 
refutation of his errors and perversions, z6zd. A 2nd mistaken quotation 
of Theodoret is by Goode, who erroneously cites him for the Church of 
England Anti-Consubstantiation and Anti-Man-Worshipping view; note 
on pages 306-308. A 3d instance of erroneous quotation of him is by 
George Stanley Faber, as though that Nestorian Syrian favored the 


Index IIT.—General Index. 621 


rr ev 


Orthodox view, note on pages 308-310; mistakes of Goode and Faber as 
to Theodoret’s heresies on the Lord’s Supper, 306-310, note; the English 
Reformers were guided by the Holy Ghost into a remarkable nearness to 
the doGtrine of St. Cyril and of Ephesus on the Eucharist, though they 
were not so fully informed on some points as we are, 310, note. We 
must hold to them so far as they are in accord with the VI. Synods, and 
must hold to Ephesus and Cyril on that theme in all respects, note on 
pages 310, 311, for Christ has spoken infallibly by Ephesus, and its teach- 
ings abide forever, 311, note; Originators or Formulators of the different 
Eucharistic views, and the dates of their Formulation, 311, 312, note; 
origin of the Nestorian view on the Lord’s Supper, 312, note; alleged 
passages of Ambrose and Augustine for it, and others for invocation of 
creatures, are condemned by the utterances of Cyril and the Third Coun- 
cil and are heretical; they can not bind the Church; Ephesus does, 312, 
note; compare 52, note; a tendency to creature worship is accompanied 
by a tendency to real presence heresies and to the idolatry of worship- 
ping the Host; and, on the other hand, a tendency to worship God alone 
and to abominate all idolatry has been accompanied generally by a ten- 
dency to reject all real presence heresies and Host Worship, and to draw 
near to the doctrines on the Lord’s Supper enunciated by St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, and approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Remarka- 
ble nearness of the English Reformers on such points; impious and ab- 
surd consequences of veal presence views are to be treated of in a Disser- 
tation on the Eucharist; some of them are mentioned in the notes on 
pages 472-478 to Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18, and in Additional Note E on 
that Blasphemy on pages 517-528. Errors on the Eucharist from which 
Cyril was free, 407, note; his Eucharistic Anathema XL. text of pages 
347-354, and notes to it on pages 406-408. Passages among 
the XX. Blasphemies of Nestorius which corrupt the true doctrine 
of the Universal Church on the Eucharist, that is the 7hanksgiv- 
ing, 531; how they corrupt it, 2b¢d.; Cyril speaks of it as ‘‘folly”’ to 
believe that we ‘‘consume the Divinity”? of God the Word in the 
Eucharist, brands the error of the eating of His flesh and blood in the 
rite as ‘“‘ Cannibalism,’ condemns the heresy of a Real Presence of the 
Substance of Christ’s Divinity in the rite, and of a real presence of the 
substance of His flesh and of His blood there, and the blasphemy that 
they are eaten there, 531, 532; says that instead of such disgusting Can- 
nibalism Christ ‘‘sends the power of life into the things which lie before 
us,’’ that is into the leavened bread and the wine, ‘‘and changes them to 
the ENERGY of His own flesh,” 532. The Bishops of the Third Ecumenical - 
Council in approving and following their teacher, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
condemned anticipatively the dotrine of Transubstantiation held to in 
one form by the Romanists, and in another by the Greeks, and the doc- 
trine of Consubstantiation held to by others, for both those heresies teach 
that we eat or consume the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist, 
as well as His flesh and blvo, 532. Cvri’s doctrine is therefore that. 


90... Act I. of Ephesus. 


God the Word enters us by His gvace in the Eucharistic eating and drink- 
ing, not by the substance of His human flesh and by that of His human 
blood, and that we do not eat them nor the Substance of His Divinity, 
and that none of these three substances is present in the rite, 532; but 
that the benefit is spiritual, 7b7d., words meaning relative and relatively 
wrongly rendered in the Oxford translation of Cyril 02 the Incarnation, 
ibid., and sub-note ‘‘a’”’ there; in what sense Cyril teaches that in the Eu- 
charist we havea ‘‘rvelative participation’ of Christ, 532, text, andsub-note 
““q, and 533, sub-note ‘‘d’’; teaching of Cyril elsewhere on the Eucharist, 


522. 
Nestorius held to one nature Consubstantiation only in the Eucharist, 


xxi.; Two Nature Consubstantiation not known in Cyril’s days, xx.; 
Keble and Pusey start in the English Church an Ecumenically anathe- 
matized heresy of Consubstantiation, the Two Nature kind, and the 
idolatry of worshipping the Host, 107, note. Bishop Bedel and some 
others for infant communion, xx., note. Cyril in his Long Epistle denies 
any Cannibalism in the Eucharist, and states the true, the sound do¢trine, 
232-240; see also under Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresies 4 and 5; 
Ambrose’s allusion to John VI. on the Eucharist, in a passage read in the 
Third World Council, 438, note 800. Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18, which is 
on the Eucharist, agrees with St. Cyril in denying the real presence of 
the Substance of God the Word’s Divinity in the Eucharist, but differs 
from him in asserting a real presence of his flesh and blood there, and 
the real eating of the flesh there, text of pages 472-474; the differences 
between Cyril, the Orthodox Champion, and the heresiarch Nestorius, on 
the Eucharist further explained, notes I000, I00I, 1007, 1020, I02I, 1022, 
with references to Cyril and to Nestorius; novelty of Nestorius’ Eucharistic 
and other errors, note Io2I, 1022. oe 

Theodoret, the Nestorian, calls Christ’s body the archetype and the 
reality; and the bread of the Lord’ssupper, the type, and the likeness, and 
the image, and the symbol of it; and he terms the bread and wine, ¢he 
antitypes and the symbols of Christ’s body and blood. He terms the Eu- 
charistic rite the A7ysteries. See under those terms in this Index. 

He is not faulted by St. Cyril nor by the Third Ecumenical Council 
for such language, but for his one nature real presence, for his worship 
of it in the Eucharist, and for the Cannibalism, (ἀνθρωποφαγία, to use St. 
Cyril’s term for it), of eating and drinking it there. 

Eunomians, see Trine Immersion. 

Eusebius of Caesarea, xxxix.-xlv.; xliv., note ‘‘a;’’ 366, note; his account of the 
attempt of Victor of Rome to get Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, and the 
Quartodecimans excommunicated by all, and its failure, xxxix.-xlv.; was 

᾿ an Arian, but is sometimes of value as a historic witness, 366, note. 

Eusebius of Dorylaeum, begins the contest for the faith against Nestorius, and 
against Eutyches; xxii., xxiv., note ‘‘k.’’ 

Fiutherius of Tyana, a bitter enemy of Cyril and of the Third Council of the 
whole Church; died in his errors, 121, note; censures Cyril for not wor- 


Index Il.—General Index. 623 


shipping Christ’s humanity, 121-128; 352, note; Eutherius denies the 
Inman, 121, and rejects the expression Bringer Forth of God which 
guards it, 121-128; denied Economic Appropriation and held to a mere 
Relative Conjunction which is merely external, 125, 126, note; blames 
Cyril for asserting in his Anathema X. that God the Word is our Medi- 
ator, 121, 122; 127, 128; why Cyril was right in so doing, 128; misunder- 
stands Cyril’s Anathema XI. to teach that Christ’s flesh is not consub- 
stantial with ours, 122-127. Some of Eutherius’ writings falsely ascribed 
to St. Athanasius; why? 122-125. See Man-Worship. 


Eutyches, the heresiarch; ix., xlix., 513; was justly condemned, ix., xlix.; what. 
his error was, 513; an utterance of his on Christ, 105, note. 


Eutychianism, on Christ’s flesh, 105, note. 

Eutychianizing; 513. 

FEvagrius, the historian; 1. 

Exarch of a Diocese, what? What is his power? note 702, page 413. See. 
Church Government. 


yo 


Taber, George Stanley, on the Eucharist, 269, note. 
Facundus,; 424, note, several times. 


Faith; sometimes used for Creed, but may include in the case of Nicaea, all its 
Canons andits Synodal Epistle, 133, note; 144, note 241; what doctrines 
Cyril’s explanation of it included; what Nestorius’ did, 267d. the Church 
decides at Ephesus for Cyril’s, δά. See πίστις in the Greek Index; see 
“ Nicaea,’’ and ‘Council, the Second Ecumentcal.”’ 

False Decretals of Isidore; 512; embodied in the Canon Law of Rome, 512. 

Father, the; the Source of Divinity, note 640, page 318. 

Father; a title of Bishops, 41. 

Fathers; inferior to Ecumenical Councils, xi.; need of a critical edition of 
them, 102, note; sad results of not having such an edition, 102, note. 
Specimen of additions even to Cyril’s work on Luke, 265, subnote. 
Some ancient writers condemned expressly, others by implication by the 
Universal Church in the Six World-Councils, 357, 358, note; others ap- 
proved by them, 7J7d.,; principles on which we must act regarding all 
writers, 359, note; see Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria; see also 
on page 513, Note D. On the expression of ‘‘Feter the Presbyter” 
on page 418, text, “Books of the most holy and most consecrated 
Fathers and of Bishops and of different Martyrs,’ and on the 
note on page 427 which states that the Ecumenical Council . 
must not be understood to approve any thing in a _ writer’s 
works which they may not have passed on, and indeed which 
they may not even have seen; errors in writings ascribed, rightly or 
wrongly, to Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of 


624 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Nyssa. Eutyches condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for an 
error on Christ’s body similar to that in an alleged writing of Gregory of 
Nyssa; Hooker on that place of Gregory of Nyssa, 513. Origen con- 
demned by Methodius for error on the resurrection, and by the Fifth 
Council, yet Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and partly also 
Basil the Great, are said to have adopted his views; Theophilus of Alex- 
andria opposed the last mentioned three on the resurrection and the 
character of the risen body, 514; error of Origen that the Devil will be 
converted said to have been held to by Gregory of Nyssa, 514; Cyprian 
taught that departed saints pray for those on earth, an error condemned 
by the whole Church in the Third Council, and by Holy Writ, 514, 515, 
and 516; Ambrose’s alleged idolatry on the Eucharist and an alleged 
passage of his for the invocation of angels and martyrs condemned by the 
Third Syuod, 516; God’s saints, Moses, David, Peter, etc., have been fal- 
lible men, and under the Old Testament and the New are rebuked for 
their faults; and there is hardly a Father who has written much whom 
critics Anglican, or other Trinitarian Protestant, or Greek, or Latin, do 
not fault for some error in doctrine, discipline, or rite. But the Six 
Ecumenical Synods, as guided by the Holy Ghost, taught only what is 
true and consonant with Scripture, and as being Holy-Ghost-led were 
infallible, 516; they condemned the Origenistic denial of the character of 
our resurrection bodies, which denial is said to have been more or less 
shared by Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil, 514-517; 
and some claim that they have condemned the co-worship of Christ’s 
humanity with His Divinity, which error it is alleged Gregory of Nazian- 
zus and Basil the Great fell into, 516, 517; the remains of some others of 
the 12 Fathers cited in Act I. of Ephesus are so meagre that we can not 
say exactly what they held on some points, zd7d.; the Second Ecumen- 
ical Council in its Creed in the full sense of the clause, ‘‘We look for a 
resurrection of the dead,’’ as ever understood by the Church, asserts the 
literal resurrection of the body buried in the grave; and its Canon I. 
condemns the Apollinarians who denied the perfection of Christ’s 
humanity; and the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that of 
the Fifth, and that of the Sixth, accept that decision and all those of 
Ephesus and proclaim the perfection of Christ’s hnmanity and its con- 
substantiality with ours; see those documents, and under Origen in the 
General Index to Vol. I. of WWicaea in this Set. /athers quoted as his- 
torical witnesses to the faith which had come down from the beginning, 
418-449; see under ““Lphesus, A. D. g37,’’ and page 1xxxvii. of the Fore- 
matter in this volume. 

Felix, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 269-274, and Martyr; his witness on the Inman, 
and the Two Natures, 424-430. See page lxxxvii. in the Forematter and 
under /’phesus in the Index; authenticity and genuineness of the passage 
quoted from him in Act I. of Ephesus; note 763, pages 428 to 433. Other 
Epistles alleged to be Julius’, zbzd.; see Eternal Birth, his literary re- 
mains but scanty, 514. 


Index II. —General Index. 625 


Fifth Ecumenical Council; its Anathema IX., ii.; its Anathemas XI., XII, 
XIII., and XIV., page xxvi.; condemned and anathematized the Nes- 
torian co-worship of the Man taken with God the Word who took him, 
Preface, ii.; anathematizes all who do not accept its anathemas, xxvi., 
note “7."” 

Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, 105, note. 

Florentius, the Tribune; 46, 47. 

Fourism, 90-128. See Tetradism, and Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2. 

Fourteenthdayites; see Quartodecimans, and xxviii. 

Fund to Publish the VI. Ecumenical Councils; Donors to on this volume, 
liii.-lv. 


G. 


Garnier, the Jesuit, on certain literary matters, xlix., 1.; 124, note. 

Gift, the Eucharistic; 280, note, and note 606, here and there. 

God; bodiless, according to Cyril, 76, note 175; Theophilus on, zdzd., did Cyril 
hold to a body of Spirit like Tertullian ? zdzd.; Tertullian’s view, zdzd.,; 
the Nicene Creed on, z67d.; Scripture on, z6zd.,; errors on this topic which 
are to be shunned, 7d7d.; Nestorius’ errors on, 417, note 420; some ancient 
Christians held that God has a body, but of Spirit, 445, note 834. 

Greeks, their practical rejection of the Six Synods while professing to receive 
them, their idolatry and creature-worship; hopes of a reform among 
them, 524, and the context. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop A. D. 370-390; called Gregory the Great, 438, 
text, and note 801; his witness for the Incarnation, and for the expression 
Bringer Forth of God which guards it, and for the two perfect Natures 
of the Son, and against the Apollinarians’ denial of the truth that the 
Word took flesh of Mary, and against their assertion that He only went 
through her as water goes through a pipe, that is, without taking any 
thing from it, and against the Apollinarian denial of the truth that His 
humanity has a mind, and against what was later the Nestorian assertion 
of two Sons and their separation, and the Nestorian averment that His 
humanity was made perfect by works and was at last made an adopted 
Son of God as the heathen made human beings to be, etc., 438-444; see 
under Christ and Adoption, see also page 1xxxvii. in the Forematter and 
under Lphesus in this Index; uses types or symbols of the Eucharist, 
269, note; wrongly quoted as Cyril of Alexandria, 265, sub-note; was he 
a Man-Worshipper? note on pages 357, 358; if he was a creature invoker, 
he is, so far, condemned by the Universal Church in the Third Synod, 
note on pages 357, 358; called the Great with better reason than Gregory 
I., Bishop of Rome, 438, note 801; his oratorical style not to be imitated 
‘where it may lead men into the sin of invoking creatures, 7b7d.; against 
the Apollinarian Two-Partites, and against the forerunners of Nestori- 
anism, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and against all 
Anti-Inman heresies, 439, note 802; and note 822, and page 442, text; 
notes $25, and $27; did not believe in a mingling of Divinity and humanity 


626 Ad 7}: τ} Ephesus. 


in Christ, but in the Incarnation, 440, text, and note 805; and note 821, 
and page 442, text; used Sfzr7¢ for Divinity, note 807; held to the perfect 
humanity of Christ, note 808; hence was opposed to the Apollinarians, 
and the Nestorians, and to the Timothean worship of a creature as God, 
as well as to the Nestorian Worship of Christ’s separate humanity, zzd. > 
443, note 825; held to Economic Appropriation, and rejected the Nes- 
torian error of Christ’s gradual withdrawal from evil and his progress by 
works, 443, note 825, and notes 827 and 831; see in this article above; held, 
against the Apollinarians, that Christ’s humanity has a mind, 441, note 
815. Paul’s division of a man includes a mind, 441, note 816. Gregory 
of Nazianzus held that God the Word was crucified, 442, 443, 444, note 
825; Origenized as to the resurrection body, 513-517; and, if Migne’s text 
of him be correct, held to the worship of Christ’s humanity, 516, 517. 


Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, A. D. 372 to about 395; witnesses for the Inflesh of 
God the Word, and for the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 445, 
446, and notes there; see also page lxxxvii. of the Forematter and under 
Ephesus in the Index; see under Fathers, here and in Jicaea; 
on the Apollinarian heresy as to Christ’s flesh, 329, note 671; on 
Man-Worship and on creature worship, 357, 358, note; for Aconomic 
Appropriation, 445, 446, and notes there; Origenized or Eutychianized 
as to Christ’s body, 513; Hooker on, zbzd.,; Gregory held, like Origen, 
to the error that the Devil might be converted, 514; such errors con- 
demned by the VI. Synods, 513-517. See under ‘‘Cave’’ in this Index. 


Guettée; on the Papacy, xliv.; on Pope Vigilius, xlviii. 


77. 


Hagenbach; on the errors of certain Fathers, 513-517. 

Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole; on the text of the Nicene Creed, 50, note, etc. 

Hardouin’s Concilia; rare and costly, xiii., xiv. 

Harrison; on the Eucharist, 271, subnote ‘‘c.”’ 

Flefele; an error of his, xxvi., note ‘‘s,’? on John of Antioch’s delay, 1., 1i. 

Hlerv, a more exact term than priest for one of sacerdotal rank, 363, note 6823 
313, note 619. 

Hezekiah, King; crushed idolatry and its maintainers, xxix., text, and note; 
the Church regarded sound Christian emperors as being like him and 
honored them in their own sphere, 32, note 74. 

High Priest; Christ our, 470, note 990; see Christ. 

Hilary of Arles, rightfully contended against the attempt of Leo I. of Rome 
to get Appellate Jurisdiction in Gaul, but is overcome by the secular 
power, xxxili.; wrong of Leo I. in that tyranny, 380, note. 

Hilkiah, the High Priest; finds the book of the Law, xii. 

HHoly Ghost; in what sense He glorifies Christ, 268-285, note 640, page 318; His 
Substance, not His influences, worshipable, 71 and 72, note; in what 
sense He is poured out by the Son, 317, note 638; Pusey’s perversion of a 
place of Cyril to make it favor the Romish dodctrine of the Double Pro- 


Index IT.—General Index. 627 


cession, 2614. Office Work of the Spirit, se. under Juzvocation and note 
640, page 318. His office work, notes 638, 639, 640. Compare Cyril’s. 
Anathema IX., pages 333-338; and note 681, which is on it; it is om 
pages 362, 363. 

Homily against Peril of Idolatry, for the VI. Synods, v. 

ffonorius, Pope; Ecumenically condemned, ix.; xliii., note; xlv., xlviii.; the 
Vatican Roman Conventicle of 1870, contradiéts on that the VIth Ecu- 
menical Synod, xliii., note; 39, note 94; 218, note 561; the condemnation 
of him by the Sixth World Council is infallible and irreversible, 322, 
note 659. 

Hypatius, of Ephesus, 424, note. 

Flyperdulia, that is, more than slavery, 340, note; a term used by Romanists 
and other creature worshippers and image worshippers to excuse their 
paganism, 340, note, and 367, note; such excuses branded by the English 
Reformers as from the Devil, 382, note. See Dudia and Latreza in this 
Index. 

Hypostases, the Three; meaning of the expression, 442, note 821; 465, note 960; 
compare note 969. 

fypostatic Union, see Substance | /nion, 


7. 


Images, the Eucharistic types anit symbols, 279, note; 280, note. 

Images, in the Mosaic Tabernacle; xlvi., note “a”; forbidden in Synagogues, 
Ἐν, xlvit.. note “ὦ. 

Image- Worship; should be don: away, 5; forbidden by Ephesus, i.; 11, note 13; 
52, note; see Relative Worship and Christ; The Fifth Ecumenical 
Council in its Anathema XII. curses the relative worship of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia who said that Christ’s mere created humanity, ‘Vust like an: 
Emperor's tmage (sixéviic) is to be bowed to with reference to the Person: 
of God the Word,’’ 423, note. 

Dressing up idols of St. Mary and St. Joseph and capping and bend- 
ing the knee to them, 467, note 966. 

Worship of pitiures and of sepulchres, and putting an image into a: 
temple of God denounced by Augustine, 484, note 1033; such sins ruined. 
Christianity in Africa, 484, note 1033. See Augustine, and Africa; they 
ruined Christianity, in much of the East and the West, 485, note 1037; 
and page 524. 

Christians would not worship the images of the Emperors, nor swear 
by their genius, 508. See in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in 
this Set under Jmages, and Jmage Worship, and in the Greek Index to 
that volume under εἰδώλοις, εἰδωλολάτραι and εἰκόνα, 

Lncense; prerogative to God, so Amphilochius teaches, 448, text, and. note 870 
there; it is wrong to give it to altars, images painted, images graven, 
relics, or to any person or thing but God’s Substance, and that. dzvectly, 
not relatively, 467, note 966. 


628 Act I. of Ephesus. 


a a i LL... 


Indwelling; see Relative Indwelling. 

Infant Communion; see Eucharist, and Metrophanes. 

Invocation; invocation of Christ's humanity, and other atis of worship to it, 
opposed by Cyril of Alexandria, Preface, pages i., ii.; zvocation of 
creatures, should be done away, 5; see Peter the Fuller; forbidden by 
Ephesus, ii.; 52, note; condemned by Athanasius and Cyril, lxviii. 
Christ alone, that is God the Word, by His humanity is our Sole Inter- 
cessor in heaven, and He alone can be prayed to, to intercede for us there, 
note 621, pages 313-316; 369, note; pages 514-516; the Holy Spirit’s 
office is not to intercede for us there, but to help us to pray on earth, 
see Holy Ghost; the notion that any one but God the Word intercedes 
for us in heaven is condemned by Cyril as approved by the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod as is all direct invocation of saints, see Holy Ghost and 
the references in this article above; is condemned by Holy Writ also, 
pages 514-516; late date of all missals and manuals which teach the con- 
trary, 315, note. God the Word’s chief function now as our High Priest 
is to intercede for us, 366, note; and 514-516; the invocation of creatures 
has brought God’s curse on East and West, 485, note 1037. See also in 
the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set under Zvocation of 
Saints, and Invocation, and Prayer to Creatures, and see also in the Greek 
Index to that volume under κτισματολατρεία, and κτιστολάτρης, and λατρεύω, 
and προσκυνέω, and προσκυνητός, and λατρεία. 

Invocation of Angels; see Laodicea, Creature Worship, Worship, Ephesus, 
Saints, Cyril the Orthodox, and 343, note 688; an alleged passage of Am- 
brose which teaches the invocation of angels and martyrs, 516; its doc- 
trine condemned by the Third Ecumenical Synod, ibid. Compare all the 
references to the Indexes of Vol. I. of Nicaea under the article last above, 
and Angels also in its General Index. 

Invocation, “the sacerdotal invocation’’ at the Eucharist, 280, four 
times, and note 606, here andthere. Jnvocation to God the Word to pray 
for us as our High Priest and Mediator, 366, note; see in Vol. I. of 
Nicaea, in this Set, under Οὐδέ. 

Trenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, x\.-xliv.; 269, note; uses type or symbol of the 
Eucharist after consecration, 269, note. 

Trenaeus, Count, afterwards Bishop of Tyre, a Nestorian; at Ephesus, for Nes- 
torius, 58, note 144; instigates the soldiers to maltreat the deputies of the 
Third Council, 13, note 18; 58, note 144; Venables prejudiced in his favor 
and against the Synod, 13, note 18; 14, note 18; Irenaeus is banished; 
writes his so-called 7ragedy, ibid.,; its partisan and false representations, 
ibid.; is made Metropolitan of Tyre by Nestorian influence, 77d., is 
removed from his see for digamy, 7b7d.; opinions of different writers on 
the digamy, for which among other things he was deposed, and on I. Tim. 

iii., 2, 9, 12, and Titus i., 6; pages 14, 15, note 18; the historical testimony 
on, 15, note; Bingham on digamy, ibid. 

Trene the Empress, a curse, x., 6; 248, 249, note. 

Ztinerant; a Bishop’s deputy, note 1112, page 496. 


Index IT.—General Index. 629 
a lL) oe ee nee 


UT: 

James If, of Engtana, the idolatrizer, 17, 18. 

Jefferson, Tom., his Christless theories of government, xxx., note. 

Jerome’s strong language against the worship of the Emperors’ images, 19; 
Jerome’s Ep. ad. Paulam de ob. Blesillae, 507, note “a.” 

Jerusalem, Council of, A. D. 16723; opposed the doctrine of the Third Ecumen- 
ical Synod on the Eucharist, note 1000, page 473. 

Jews; should not be permitted to share in the government of a Christian state, 
Ἐπίπ,, xkxx., note. 

Jezebel; was imitated by the Empresses Irene and Theodora, x., 6. 

John of Antioch; a champion of Nestorius, XxXxvi., 116, note; his delay, 1., li., 
41, note 102. 

John Chrysostom, 180; praised by Celestine, Bishop of Rome, 7did., see 
Chrysostom, above. 

Joseph, St.; see Altars and Images. 

Josiah, King; was a Reformer, xii.; crushes idolatry and error, xxix., text and 
note. 

Julius Africanus, on Christ as our High Priest “who presents our prayers to” 
the Father, 372, note. 

Julius I., Bishop of Rome, 337-352; on the Inman and the Two Natures, 423, 
424. See also page lxxxvii. in the Forematter in this volume, and under 
Ephesus in this Index. Authenticity and genuineness of a passage 
quoted from him in Act I. of the Third World Synod, note 759, pages 424- 
428, text and notes; his literary remains but scanty, 514. 

Justina, tries to take away a church for Arian worship, 16; is resisted, 16. 

Juvenal of Jerusalem, xxxviii., 1., 23; see also under his name in Index I.; he 
took a prominent part in the Acts on the Orthodox side, zbzd. 


K. 


Keble, John, the Heresiarch; paganizes the £ ucharist, 107, note; 237, note; see 
under Aucharist and Nestorius and his fleresies, Heresies 4 and 5; 250, 
note; see Pusey, 35. B., and Cannibalism and avOpwrogayia, in the Indexes 
to this volume and in those to Vol. I. of Nicaea. Keble is antecedently 
anathematized by the Third World-Synod, 107, note; 250, note. See 
Keble in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 

Kenrick, the Romish Arbp. of Baltimore; argues for the absolute worship of 
Christ’s humanity, 337-343, note; and for the Ecumenically condemned 
Worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, note on pages 342, 343. 

Kimmel’s Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae Orientalis, 523, etc. 

King, Bp. of Lincoln; deserves deposition for Eucharistic heresy, 247, note; 

(see Benson also); his idolatrous partisans wish the “Lamb of God who 

takest away the sins of the Worid, have mercy upon us’’ to be sung to 

the Host after consecration in the Eucharist to foster their belief in the 

Real Presence of both Christ’s Natures, and their worship of the Host, 

247, note; The Romish Archbishop Kenrick in his 7) heologia Dog matica, 


690 Act I. of Ephesus. 


vol. IV., Phila. A. D. 1840, page 377, tells us who the originator of the 
custom was, which is so out of place and wrong in the Eucharist, because 
as the memorial sacrifice is offered to the Father, as the original all- 
sufficient propitiatory one was, the invocation of the Son or the Holy Ghost 
is not proper in that rite. Kenrick there writes, (I translate), 

“He” [Sergius I., Bishop of Rome, A. Ὁ. 687-701], ‘‘ enacted that in 
the Mass, the words, ‘Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, 
have mercy upon us’ should be said thrice by the clergy and people while 
the Host was being broken. Afterwards, on account of the calamities of 
wars, it came to pass that the words ‘Grant us peace’ were said three 
times.’’? Kenrick on the same page tells us that this Sergius I. was a 
native of that Syria, where we find the first clear mention of the corrup- 
tion of worshipping the Host; it was among Nestorians and Monophysites. 
See 7heodoret, the Nestorian. It wascondemned by St. Cyrilof Alex- 
andria and by Ephesus. See them in this Index. 

Kneeling at the Communion, no proof for it anciently; whereas standing was 
once universal, and was the ancient and is the present custom of the 
Greeks, 243-248, note. 


Bp 


Labarree, Rev. Mr.; on Nestorius’ writings in Syriac, note 1021, page 479. 

Laodicea, local Council of, made of Ecumenical authority by Canon I. of Chal- 
cedon; brands invocation of angels as “‘hidden idolatry,’ xvii., text and 
WOtee Ὑ2. ἡ 

Latimer, Preface, page I. 

Latreia, or latria, service, and Dulia, slavery, distinctions made to defend idola- 
try, 342, note; 340, note; condemned by the English Reformers, 382, note; 
see also Hyperdulia, another of them, in this Index; and on page 367, 
note; and 406, note. Buckley’s definition of ‘‘Zatria,” 523, sub-note 
Gp DP) 

Leavened bread in the Eucharist; see Eucharist, and 242, note; and page 264, 
sub-note ‘‘Z/.’? Dositheus, a Greek, on, 525. 

Leol., Bishop of Rome; xxxii., xxxiii; his Epistle to Flavian against the Eu- 
tychian heresy approved by Chalcedon, 57, note; did well in opposing Eu- 
tyches, 428, note; his opinion as to Christ’s Mediatorship, note on pages 
380, 381; it is condemned by Ephesus, antecedently, 381, note; his wrong 
course in making the Western Emperor Valentinian III. his tool to pro- 
cure for him the power of Appellate Jurisdiction over other Western 
Sees, 427, 428, note. 

Leontius; 104, note; 105, note; 424-426, note. 

Liturgies; oldest manuscripts of are late, 315, note; 366, note. 

Liturgy, Anglican, forms of, on spiritual sacrifice, priesthood, etc., 238, note.. 

Liturgy, called St. Basil's; on spiritual sacrifice, priesthood, etc., 238, note. "ἡ 

Logos, the; see Christ. 

Luther, was not so full, thorough and exact against creature invocation, image- 
worship and other creature worship as the Third Synod, i., ii; his mis- 


Index Il.—General Index. 631 


eee reer eee een ππσθπ!᾽ι πα σ πὐππππὐπππππππππ τττπὰππὰππὰΨἘπἘΨἘΠἘἕἘΨἕΨἔΨνΨ““πφᾳἕἔ[ρΚΨοοοο»͵“«Ἑ«-το““--π- “3 


conception as to Ephesus and Cyril of Alexandria, VII.; on suppressing 


error, ΧΧΙΧ. 


77. 


Macarius, 269, note. 

Macedonians; kill Anthony, Bishop of Germa, xxviii. 

Macedonius; who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, ix., xlviii.; his con- 
demnation just, zd7d. 

Man-eating,; that is Cannibalism, see under Eucharist, and Cannibalism in this 
Index, and Lucharist in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea; and see 
also in the Greek Indexes under ἀνθρωποφαγία. 

Man-Worship; condemned, Preface, i. toiv. See Nestorius and his Heresies, 
Heresy 2; and Cyril the Orthodox, Eucharist, Christ, and Creature 
Worship, Relative Worship, Relative Indwelling, and Relative Con- 
junction, and in the Greek under ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is Man-Worship, 
and Nestorius in this volume. Cyril in his Shorter Epistle, pages 79, 80, 
denies ‘‘that we bow to a Man [Christ’s humanity] TOGETHER WITH 
(σύν) the Word, lest that thing be secretly brought in for a phantasm, 
on account of our saying TOGETHER WITH, (σύν). Note 183, pages 79-128, 
(which we here summarize, for it is a Dissertation rather than a note), 
treats of that topic under the following heads, 1. Cyril’s teaching on 
that point of Man-Worshtp: 

2. How far the Third Synod of the whole Church and the Three 
after it have followed him, and what the doéirine of the Six World 
Councils ts: 

3. Quotations from some Nestorian writers on it against Cyril and 
the Orthodox, page 79. 

Head 1, What was Cyril's teaching as to bowing to, that is worship- 
ping, the humanity of Christ? pages 79-128; Cyril makes bowing, as an 
act of religious service, prerogative to God, for, addressing Nestorius, he 
says, “27 thou sayest that the humanity has been substancely united to the 
Word who was born out of God, why dost thou wantonly insult the flesh 
of God,’’ [that is by worshipping it, a mere creature, contrary to Matt. 
iv., 10, Rev. xix., 10, and Rev. xxii., 8, 9, and so insulting it as though 
it were so wrong as to accept from a creature-worshipping mortal that 
which belongs to God alone, ] ‘‘even, indeed, by not refusing to bow to it? 
whereas the right to be bowed to befits the divine and ineffable Nature 
alone,’’ 79; similarly Cyril writes in note 582, pages 225, 226; Andrew 
and Eutherius understand him to deny worship to Christ’s humanity, 
pages 116 to 127, note; dowing, here used for every act of religious wor- 
ship, 80; and note 582, pages 225, 226; in how many senses owing may 
be used, 80; Nestorius’ relative worship of Christ’s humanity condemned, 
and the Nestorian Relative Worship of the Eucharist, 80; and the Nes- 
torian Relative Conjunction, the basis of the Relative Worship of Christ’s 
humanity, 80, 81; the latter also condemned, 81-90; and Apollinarianism, 
81; and dividing the honor which belongs to God the Word alone with, 


082 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


His humanity, and co-bowing to His humanity with His Divinity, 81-90; 
the result of which is to make that humanity a god, 83, 84, and to end in 
creature worship which is condemned by God, 85; with reference to the 
Nestorian perversion of such texts as Philippians ii., 9, 10, 11, and Heb. 
i., 6, to make them teach relative worship to Christ’s humanity, on ac- 
count of its mere alleged Relative Conjunction to God the Word, Cyril 
teaches that inasmuch, (as he states on pages 79 and 225, following St. 
Athanasius’ teaching on pages 217-240, Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set), as 
all acts of worship, bowing, prayer, giving God’s name, etc., are preroga- 
tive to God alone (Matt. iv., 10), therefore wherever Scripture gives them, 
or any of them, to any one we must understand that that one is God; and 
so the bowing the knee, and the giving God’s name, and the name Lord 
in Philippians ii., 9, 10, 11, must be understood as acts of worship to God 
the Word, not to a creature; but that if, as the Nestorians asserted, those 
acts of worship in that passage, and the bowing ordered by God the 
Father in Hebrews i., 6, to be givento the Sole Born, were to be given to 
Christ’s humanity, a mere creature, then it would follow that the Father 
Himself is the inventor of Creature-Worship, and has made Christ’s 
humanity a god by ordering it to be worshipped, by bowing, etc., and 
that “1176 has been aggrieved without any cause at some for doing that 
thing’ of worshipping a creature. ‘‘4nd” [Cyril asks] ‘7 that thing” 
[of worshipping a creature] “‘were to His’ [the Father’s] ‘glory, why 
should we not deem those who have chosen to do that thing worthy of 
recompense and praise and glory?” [instead of the eternal damnation 
which He punishes them with, Rev. xxi. 8, etc.], 84, 85; the Nestorian 
excuse, that though they divided Christ’s two Natures they united the 
bowing to them, denounced, as an insult to God the Word “by dragging 
down His better Nature [the Divinity] zzto dishonor,” 86, 87; Nestorius 
admitted that to worship Christ’s humanity for its own sake would be 
manifest worship of a Man, but contends that to worship it relatively to 
God the Word is not, 87; Cyril refutes that error of relative worship of a 
creature as from ‘‘a reprobate mind,’ 87; and as a proof that Nestorius, 
‘falling away from the road to what is right, * * * hastens along 
his perverse way,’’ 88, and that by worshipping Christ’sseparate humanity 
he makes it “ἃ new god,’ andis, after all his attempts to dodge it, “ὦ 
worshipper of a Man,’ 88, 89, 90; his applying the name God to Christ’s 
humanity condemned, 88; by bowing to Christ’s humanity, he “adds a 
worshipped Man to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity and is not 
ashamed,” 89; and so ends not in Zrinitarianism, but in Tetradism, 
that isin Fourism, that isin worshipping four and not the three uncreated 
Persons only, 90-94; Nestorius should have ‘‘shuddered”’ when he con- 
trived “worship to that creature,’’ Christ’s mere separate humanity; that 
he who worships it is ‘‘eld fast in the ancient snares” of creature wor- 
ship, 91; that to understand Heb. i., 6, to teach worship to Christ’s 
humanity by the spirits above is to deem them ‘‘decezved”’ into that 
error; and to represent the Father as commanding that worship to 9 


Index IIl.—General Index. 633° 


creature is to give ‘drunkards’ insults to God,’ 91; that Christians “have 
refused as a blasphemous thing to worship the creature,’ Christ’s humanity, 
and that Nestorius would ‘‘whelm us again in the ancient sins and make 
us worshippers of a Man,” that according to that Heresiarch “a recent 
and late god has appeared to the world,” Christ’s mere humanity; that he 
“glories in certain adulterous guasi honors, so that it is now the worship 
of a Man and nothing else, and a certain Man is adored with the Holy 
Trinity,’ 92, 93; that to teach that erroristo ‘‘se¢ a trap to corrupt men,’” 
93; that it is to make that Man, a mere creature, ‘‘a complement of the 
Trinity and in nature equal to It,” 94; whereas God alone is to be 
worshipped, 94; chief texts urged by Cyril against the Nestorian 
worship of Christ’s humanity, and for the worship of God alone, 
94-96; I10, note; Cyril’s glorious and often expressed opposition 
to the Nestorian Man-Worship and for the worship of God alone, 
further quotations and references, 94-98; Nestorius’ argument for 
the relative worship, by bowing, of Christ’s humanity, 85; condemned by 
Cyril, 85, 86; co-bowing to both Natures of Christ condemned by Cyril, 
86, 97, 98; Cyril’s argument against the Nestorian Worship of Christ’s 
humanity is @ fortiori, against any worship of any creature less than that 
humanity, 96; Nestorius admitted that any absolute worship of Christ’s 
humanity is wrong, but contends that the velative is not, 96; similar 
heresy of some late traitorous Anglicans, 96 fate of the unworthy bishops 
who suffer them, 96; how his Relative Indwelling differs from the Sud- 
stance Indwelling, 96; Cyril’s formula, ‘‘We bow to the Word within His 
Jesh,” or “to the Word with flesh’? (μετὰ σαρκός), but forbids the flesh to 
be co-bowed to with the Divinity” (ἀπαγορεύων δὲ * * * τῇ Θεότητι τὴν 
σάρκα), 97, and 102-112; see 216, note 550; and note 583, page 226; 260, note. 
Did Cyril refuse all worship to Christ’s humanity? notes 183 and 583; the 
editor’s judgment to be expressed hereafter, not now, note 583, page 226. 
Nestorius’ formula was, We co-bow to the flesh with the Word, and we 
co-glorify the flesh with the Word, 82, 97, 98; that is we unite the bowing, 
86; and 226, note 583. Athanasius (whom Cyril in his Ecumenically ap- 
proved Epistle to John of Antioch always professes to follow) condemns 
the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity, 98-103, but worshipped God 
the Word in the created temple of His body, 98, 99, 100, 101; a Nestorian 
understood Cyril to teach that Christ’s humanity is not worshipable at all, 
98 and 121, 125, 126 and 127; Athanasius writes, ‘‘We do not worship a 
creature. God forbid! For such an error as that belongs to the heathen 
and to the Arians. But we bow to the Lord of the creation Who has put 
on flesh, that is to the Word of God,” 98; he seems to deny bowing, that 
is worship, to Christ’s humanity altogether and to worship God the Word 
only in the Son, 98, 99, 100, 101; censures some heretics who would not 
worship God the Word in flesh, as in a temple, 98-102; (on that passage 
of Athanasius see further in the Greek Index under προσκυνοῦμεν). But, 
objection, Cyril’s X. Books against Julian the Apostate san&tion the Rela- 
tive Worship of mere things: answer; they are not Cyril’s, but part of a 


634 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


ee a a a a οι ΘΟ ο 


work of Philip of Sida altered; 101. See also under Relative Worship, 
and note 971, page 468. 

Head II., we inquire as to how far the Third Synod of the whole 
Church and the three after it have followed the statement and dotirine of 
Cyril of Alexandria as to the worship of Christ's humanity, and to state 
what the doctrine of the Six World Councils on that topic is; 

(a). in Cyril’s two Epistles which were approved by the Third Ecu- 
‘menical Synod; 108; 

(5). in the condemnation of the Apollinarian Man-Worshippers by 
the Second World Synod, before Cyril; 108; 

(c). in Cyril’s Anathema VIII.; 109; 

(d). in the deposition of Nestorius in Act I. of the Third Synod for 
it among other things, I09; 

(e). in the condemnation, in Act VI. of the Third Synod, of the Creed 
ascribed to Theodore of Mopsuestia for its Relative Worship of Christ’s 
humanity, 109; 

(f). in the part of the Definition of the Fifth Synod which is before 
its Anathemas, against it and against other Nestorian heresies, 109, 110; 
which calls it, “216 crime of Man- Worship,” 226, note 5833 

(g). in its Anathema IX.; 110; 

(λ). in its Anathema XII. which condemns the Nestorian Relative 
Worship of Christ’s humanity; 111, note; 

(ἢ). in these utterances the Universal Church condemns all the Nes- 
torian relative worship of Christ’s humanity, which is confessedly the high- 
est of all mere creatures, and ὦ fortiori, that is much more, all relative 
worship and all absolute worship of any and all other creatures, and of 
all mere things, 112. 

Head III., We come now to quote some Nestorian Writers on the 
Worship of Christ’s humanity against St. Cyril and the Orthodox, 112; 1, 
Diodore of Tarsus, 112; 2. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 113; 3. Nestorius, 113; 
4. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 115; 5. Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, 116; 
6. Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, 121; end of the summary of note 183. 
Cyril condemns the worship of Christ’s flesh together with (σύν) His Di- 
vinity, but worships God the Word with, that is seemingly within (μετά) 
His flesh, 108, note; 226, note 583. 

On Man-Worship; see Cyril of Alexandria’s XII. Chapters; large 
amount of matter in Nestorius and Cyril on the Worship of Christ’s hu. 
manity, page 362, note 680; 363, note 688; how the Apollinarian se¢ts, 
the Timotheans, and the Valentinians, differed from each other and from 
Orthodoxy on that theme, 429-433, mote; see Apollinarians; Man-Wor- 
ship of the A pollinarians and the Nestorians, 440, note 809; What Peter 
of Alexandria mentions to the Ecumenical Council as “the blasphemies 
of * * * Nestorius’ (page 449) are specified in Note F, pages 529- 
551. They are included in what the Third Ecumenical Council, in its Sen- 
tence of Deposition on Nestorius on pages 486-458, terms his ‘‘zmpzettes,”’ 
(and it is surely an impiety to bring into Christ’s God-alone-worshipping 


Index II.—General Index. 635 


religion, WMan-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία, as St. Cyril call it), that is the 
worship of a creature); and it calls him ‘‘the most impious Nestorius,” 
and declares that ‘‘he thinks and preaches impiously’’, that is in the XX. 
Blasphemies just read to them; and they are taken from his Homilies, 
(compare page 533 above), and it adds, ‘‘Therefore our Lord Jesus 
Anointed Who has been BILASPHEMED by him, has decreed, through the 
present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is an alien from the 
Episcopal dignity and from every priestly assembly.’? So alsoin “‘the 
sentence of Deposition sent to him on the day after his Deposition”’ the 
Ecumenical Synod tells him that it deposes him on account of his ‘‘blas- 
phemous preachings’’; and, as atraitor to Christ’s anti-creature worship- 
ing faith, it calls him, ‘‘Vestorius, anew Judas,’ pages 503, 504. Seein 
the General Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea under God, Logos, and Man-Wor- 
ship, and in its Greek Index under ἀνϑρωπολατρεία, avd pwrodatpéw and 
ἀνϑρωπολάτρης. 

Manuscripts of Ephesus; see Ephesus and Mansi’s Concilia, xiii., xiv. 

Mariolatry,; 1. See Man-Worship, and Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2, 
aud Cyril, and Creature-Worship and Mary the Virgin; see also in the 
General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea under Mariolatry and Mary the 
Vi-gin. 

Marius Mercator; 124, note; 424, note, several times. 

Martialis; a fallen Spanish Bishop, xlv. See Cyprian. 

Mary, the Mary Church at Ephesus; 21, text, and note 22. 

Mary the Virgin, i.; spoken of by Ephesus as Θεοτόκος, Bringer-forth-of God, 
which is inaccurately rendered Mother of God, i., vi., vii., viii.; 184, note 
438; 222, note; well rendered Dezpara, that is Bringer Forth of God, by 
the old Latins, 222, note; she is not to be worshipped, Preface, ii.; see 
Mother of God, and Bringer Forth of God, and Θεοτόκος, 22, note 22; 
184, note 438. See Creature-Worship, and Invocation, altars to her in 
Romish churches, and a menth devoted to her worship every year by 
them, 22, note 22; by Ephesus and all the VI. Councils neither the Virgin 
nor any other creature may be invoked or otherwise worshipped, 363, note 
688; 184, note 438; Cyril refuses to make her a goddess, as does every one 
who invokes or bows to her, z67d.,; late date of her festivals, 211, 212; see 
Proclus, and Alturs, and Images; see also in the General Index to Vol. 
I. of Nicaea in this Set under Mary the Virgin, Mariolatry, etc. Why 
the Third Council uses Bringer Forth of God of her, (not to her), 184, 
note 438; strange heresy of the Timotheans against the Incarnation and 
the verity of Christ’s humanity, note 773, page 434. Nestorius rejects 
the Incarnation and the expression Bringer Forth of God, (Θεοτόκοο), 
which guards it, and prefers the expression Bringer Forth of the 
Anointed One, that is, he means, of ax Anointed Man, (Χριστοτόκος), 
because it permits him to hide his own denial of the Inman, and to believe 
that she brought forth a mere man only, and so to commit the paganism 
of worshipping a mere man, Man- Worship, (ἀνϑρωπολατρεία) as St. Cyril 
calls it; 450, 451, 452, 453 (twice); and notes 169, 171, 172, on page 74. 


636 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Mediator, see Christ. 

Memnon of Ephesus; xxxviii., 1., 16, 17, 18, 23. He was active in the Acts on 
the Orthodox side; see his name in Index I. above. 

Mennonites, their heresy as to Christ’s flesh anathematized by Gregory of Na- 
zianzus, as read in the Third Synod, 440, text, and note 810. 

Methodius; against Origen’s errors on the resurrection, 513. 

Metrophanes, and his Confession; for Infant Communion, 525. 

Metropolitan, the, and his Council; note 702, page 413. 

Metropolitans, 32, note 73; 38; notes 702, 1023. See Church Government, their 
rights and offices, z6zd.; and 413, note 702, and 479, note 1023; all 
Patriarchal sees at first Wetropolitical, 32, note 32; all Patriarchs invited 
to form part of the Third Synod addressed as Metropolitans, not as Patri- 
archs, z76z7d.; and page 38, and page 479, note Io23. Compare under JZet- 
ropolitans in the General Index to Vol. 1. of Nicaea in this Set. 

Milan, see Council of, 16. 

Mingling of Christ’s Two Natures, 441, note 819; see Two Natures. 

Miracle or Mercy of God in saving the plates of this volume so far as done, 
from destruction by fire, 552; compare pages 484-487, Vol. I. of Vicaea in 
this Set. 

Mohammed, see Mohammedanism in the General Index to this volume, and 
in that to Vol. I. of Wzcaea and Arad in this. 

Mohammedanism, xxix., note God’s curse for idolatry, 30, note 57; 35, note 
88; compare note 680, page 362; and page 524 and under Arad. 

Monk-Bishops; saved England, under God in James II.’s time, 18. 

Monks, 175, note 383; most bishops so anciently, zdzd. 

Monophysites; are heretics on creature-worship and the Eucharist, iv., 104; 
profess to receive only the first three World Synods, vi.; have corrupted 
Cyril of Alexandria’s writings, 113 note see One-Natureites. 

Monophysitism,; mixes Christ’s Two Natures into One Nature; that mixture 
Ecumenically anathematized, 72, note; Cyril confesses the Two Natures 
against such heresies, 214, note 543; two kinds of, 345, note; results in 
fact, in Wan-Worshtp, and [dolatry, 345, 346, note. 

Mormonism, xxix., note; a menace and curse, 707d. 

Mosaic Church, 6 cursed like the Christian with women idolatrizers, 262d. 

Moses, Law of, abolished; xlvi., note ‘‘a,’? and xlvii., ‘‘0.” 

Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist.; see Murdock’s. 

Murdock’s Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., vii. 

Mother of God, see Bringer-Forth-of-God, and Mary the Virgin; and, in the 
Greek Index, Θεοτόκος: vi.-ix. reasons why we should prefer the ex- 
pression adopted by the Third Synod, Aringer Forth of God, to Mother 
of God, which was not approved by it zdzd.; see under ‘‘Vestorius and 
his Heresies,’ not authorized by the Third Council, 222, note; probably 
used as a translation of Θεοτόκος, Bringer Forth of God, in the present 
corrupt Latin of Nestorius’ Counter Anathema L., if it be genuine, 320, 321, 
note; see Afollinarians; Neale’s corrupt use, 412; J. H. Newman’s 
wrong translation of Θεοτόκος, note 741, page 420. 


Index II.—General Index. 637 


Mysteries, that is Sacraments, used in the plural for the Eucharist, 279, note; 
280, note; and note 606, here and there. 


lV. 


Names of Sees and Bishops differently spelled in the manuscripts, 497, note 
II19; causes of it, zbzd. 

Neale, John Mason, the Romanizer and idolatrizer, xlix.; his infamous remarks 
on Cyril Lucar, 523, 524; (see Neale in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
Nicaea); on Proclus’ alleged sermons, 411, 412. See Proclus. 

“‘ Necessarily proceeded,’ sense of the expression, 486, note 1042. 

Nectarius, Bp. of Constantinople; xxxii.; exercises Appellate Jurisdiction in 
Asia Minor, Pontus, and in the Patriarchate of Autioch, 267d. 

Nestorians; were creature-worshippers, and heretical on the Eucharist, iv.; 
see Cyril the Orthodox and Nestorius the Heresiarch; were bitter perse- 
cutors of the Orthodox, 122, 123; Nestorian heretical relative Man-Wor- — 
ship expressions, 223, 224, note, and see under προσκυνῶ and its different 
derived forms in the Greek Index. The Nestorians receive only the first 
two World Synods, vi.; have been cursed by God for their worship of 
Christ’s separate humanity which is anathematized by Ephesus, but cling 
to it still; for their invocation of the Virgin Mary and saints or alleged 
saints, and for giving relative worship to the cross, and also to the bread 
and wine of their Eucharist, and for the other Nestorian heresies, 175, 
note 388; Badger, their friend, shows that they are degraded invokers of 
the Virgin Mary, 452, note 895. The blood of 7,700 Monophysites or 
Catholics shed to secure their sway in Persia, 415, note 707. 


NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES. 

Their rise and spread, xv.-lii. See Cyril the Orthodox, and Nes- 
torius the Heresiarch,; and especially Nestorius, his XX. Blasphemties, 
text of pages 449-480; and note F., pages 529-551, where they are separated 
into their proper heads. I specify the chiefof them: 

I. DENIAL OF THE INFLESH AND THE INMAN, AND REJECTION OF 
THE SUBSTANCE UNION, THAT IS THE UNION OF GOD THE WORD’S SUB- 
STANCE, WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS HUMANITY, BY THE INCARNA- 
TION; AND THE EXPRESSION ‘‘ BRINGER-FORTH OF GOD,’’ WHICH GUARDS 
ALL THOSE TRUTHS, (see under ‘‘Unzon of Chris?’s Two Natures), and as 
a consequence of his denial of the Incarnation, he and his followers, 
Theodoret of Cyrus and others held toa merely ‘external and relative 
conjunction”? (συνάφειαν * * * τὴν ἐξωθέν re καὶ σχετικῆν), aS ON page 66, 
of God the Word with His humanity, that is, to a merely Relative /n- 
dwelling (σχετικὴν * * ἐνοίκησιν), as on page 66, of that humanity 
by His Spirit as He indwells us by It. Compare 88, note; 113, note; 114, 
note; 215, note 549; 217, note 557; note 892, pages 451, 452; notes 896 and 
903 on page 453; notes 909, 910 and 911 on page 454, and the followirg 
notes on pages 439-489; notes 802, 805; 892; and note 1046, pages 487-489. 
On all these errors under head I see xxii.-xxiv., xxv., xxvi., xxxv., 


638 


Ac I. of Ephesus. 


KXXVi., xxxix., li.; 155-166, and in his Ecumenically condemned Epistle 
to Cyril where he repeatedly denies the Inflesh as there stated in the 
notes. He rejects the expression “Bringer Forth of God”’ also, 161. 
He gloried in his condemnation of Orthodox clerics who agreed with 
Cyril, and falsely branded them as Manichaeans, 165; Celestine of Rome 
refused to admit his depositions and excommunications of Orthodox men, 
183, 188-193, and especially 197; so did Cyrilin his Ecumenically approved 
Long Epistle, 212. See the strong and sound testimonies of the Bishops 
against the teachings of Nestorius’ Epistle and against Nestorius himself 
on pages 166-178; Nestorius admitted a Union of Christ’s Two Natures in 
name only, not in fact, 169; his denial of the Inman is witnessed to by 
Theodotus of Ancyra, 409-411; so Acacius of Melitine witnesses, 415-417. 
Nestorius’ denial of the truth that God the Word’s Eternal Substance 
took flesh in the womb of the Virgin and was born out of her in it, ended 
in making his Christ a mere Man, and his worship of him mere Man- 
Worship, 61-69, note 156; 74, notes 169, 171, and 172; difference be- 
tween the Orthodox Substance Union, and the Nestorian heresies on that 
point and on Man-Worship, 2z7d., Nestorius and his champion Theo- 
‘doret’s defence of his denial of the Inman, and of his doctrines of Re/a- 
tive Conjunction, Relative Union, and Relative Worship of Christ’s 
separate humanity, tbid., and Cyril’s and the Universal Church’s con- 
demnation of them, 7d7d.; Cyril explains what Nestorius’ doctrine of 
Externaland Relative Conjunétion 15, ‘‘They hold toa Conjunction which 
25 both external and relative, such as we also have’’ [to God the Word] 
“inasmuch as we have been made partakers of His Divine Nature through 
the Spirit’? [II. Peter i., 4], 66, note, and 67, note; that Conjunétion 
condemned by Cyril, zzd., and 67, note. Nestorius held that God the 
Word indwells His humanity, not by His eternal and Divine Substance 
but only by His Spirit as he indwells us, and makes his Christ merely an 


inspired man, 66, note; those errors condemned by St. Cyril, 2bzd.,; notes 


169, 171, 172, on page 74, and 88, note. Cyril in his Shorter Epistle 
teaches the doctrine of the Inflesh, 60-74; that the Substance of God the 
Word was not turned into flesh, 61; that the difference between Christ’s 
two Natures has not been done away by the Union, 67-73; and teaches 
the Substance Union and explains the expression Bringer Forth of God 
which guards it, 79-112. Cyril teaches two births of God the Word, one 
‘out of the Father ‘‘defore all the worlds’’ as the Nicene Creed has it, and 
the other in time out of Mary the Virgin, of whom we speak therefore as 
Bringer Forth of God, that is of God the Word, 98-111; and exhorts 
Nestorius to hold to and to teach the truth against his heresies, 114-120. 
Nestorius’ denial of the Inman is condemned in Cyril’s Long Epistle to 
him, 206-220, etc.; and the expression Bringer Forth of God is explained 
and defended in it, on pages 286-313, and the rejecter of it and the Incar- 
nation, which it guards, is anathematized on pages 314-318 and in An- 
athemas which there follow. On the above heresy of Nestorius, on those 
which here follow, and on all his others see his XX. Blasphemies, pages 


Index IT.—General Index. 639, 


Sc nen ne EEE a nnn nnn ᾳᾳᾳᾳ0ᾳᾳᾳ0Ί ΟΝ 


449 to 481, and Note F., pages 529-551. See under Mary the Virgin. 
See especially Nestorius’ Blasphemies, I, 2, 3, 4, and part of the end of 19, 
Nestorius makes Christ a mere imperfect man at first, who, however, 
‘progressed little by little into the dignity of High Priest,” or, as he 
words it again, ‘he was perfected by progressing little by little,’ Blas- 
phemy 16, pages 469, 470. That heresy is anathematized in Anathema 
XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod; Nestorian Union dy good pleasure 
merely, 70, note; 71, note; by zaking to a man, or adoption, 71, 72; see. 
on all those errors, page 112, note; 113-128, note. ‘‘“A// the Bishops,” 
in Act I. of the Third Council, after Nestorius’ blasphemous Epistle had 
been read, ‘‘shouted out together, Let him be anathema who does not: 
anathematize INestorius,’? 176, note 388; this curse falls on those who. 
deny that he was a denier of the Inman and a worshipper of a Man, or- 
who share either of those sins or his condemned Eucharistic or other. 
heresies, 747d.; Nestorius is branded by the Third Ecumenical Council as 
“a new Judas,” and as “‘preaching impiously,’? and as guilty of ‘‘dlas- 
phemous preachings” for his treasonable utterances against Christ’s In- 
carnation, and for creature-worship, and Cannibalism on the Eucharist; 
see pages 486-488, and 503, and 504, and see also under Man- Worship. 
Compare page 449, Peter’s words. 

2. NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES, HERESY 2. His MAN-WORSHIP; 
inasmuch as Nestorius, by denying the Incarnation of God the Word, 
made his Christ to be a mere human being, that is, a mere creature, and 
yet worshipped him, he necessarily became by that MAN-WoRSHIP. 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία), as Cyril calls it, A WORSHIPPER OF A MAN (ἀνθρωπολάτρης), 
as Cyril brands him again and again, that is, ὦ CREATURE-WORSHIPPER 
(κτισματολάτρης), AND SO ENDED, AS-‘CYRIL WELL ARGUES, IN TURNING A 
WORSHIPPED CONSUBSTANTIAL TRINITY, THE FATHER, HIS CONSUB- 
STANTIAL WORD AND HIS CONSUBSTANTIAL, SPIRIT, INTO A WORSHIPPED, 
TETRAD, THAT IS, INTO A QUATERNITY OR QUATERNARY, THAT IS INTO, 
A FOUR, BY WORSHIPPING A MERE MAN, A MERE CREATURE, THAT 15, 
CHRIST’S HUMANITY, WITH THEM; in other words, he ceased to bea 
Trinitarian and became a Quaternarian, that is a Fourite. HIS MAN- 
WORSHIP, THAT IS WORSHIP OF A CREATURE, iv., XXVi.,. XXXV., XXXVI., 
xxxix., li., 16; Nestorius, in his Ecumenically condemned Epistleto Cyril, 
asserts that "Ὡς * * * circumcision, and sacrifice, and sweatings, and 
hunger, and thirst”? * * * ‘‘happened to his’? merely human Christ’s 
‘Hesh for our sake’ they ‘‘are to be joined together to be worshipped !”’ that 
is creature-worship, contrary to Matt. iv., 10; he gloried in his condemna- 
tion of Orthodox clerics who agreed with Cyril, and falsely brands them 
as Manichaeans, 165. Celestine of Rome refused to admit his depo- 
sitions and excommunications of Orthodox men, 183, 188-193, and 
especially 197. So did Cyril in his Ecumenically approved. Long Epistle, 
212. See how strongly and faithfully the Bishops of the Third Council 
condemn Nestorius and his heresies in his Epistle, 166-178. 

Cyril of Alexandria in his Shorter Epistle condemns, Nestorius’ wor-. 


640 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


ship of Christ’s mere separate humanity, 79-111; and exhorts him to hold 
to and to teach as he (Cyril) does on that theme, 112-120. See also 
especially note 183, pages 79-128; note 582, pages 225, 226; notes 676, 
677 and 679, pages 332-362; and note 680, page 362; compare on the gen- 
eral subject of Nestorius’ Man-Worship, notes 892, 894, 895, 896, 903, 
909, 910, 911, 933, 935, 937, 938, 939, 941, 944 and 948; 949 especially, 952, 
954, 957, 958, 959, 963, 965, 966, 971, 972, 990, 995, 1000, ΙΟΟΙ, 1020, 1021, 
1022, 1040 and 1046; notes 909-1046 are found on pages 454-489. Some of 
these notes refer to Relative Worship, Nestorius’ pagan excuse for his 
Man-Worship. Seealso under Worship, heads 2, 3, etc. 

On Nestorius’ Tetradism and Cyril’s condemnation of it, see note 
183, pages 79-128, all of that note, especially pages 79-98, and 112-115. 
Cyril teaches that by worshipping Christ’s humanity, he makes it a mew 
god, 79-98; especially pages 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 94; for Cyril held that 
all acts of religious worship, bowing and prayer included, are prerogative 
to God alone, 79, 225; the learned Bishop Fell, whom even Romish Bene- 
di¢tine editors term ‘‘the most illustrious Bishop of Oxford,’’ speaking of 
departed saints well writes that, “214 man who petitions them makes 
them gods,” (Tyler’s Primitive Christian Worship, page 166); Cyril’s 
language is even stronger against the sin of worshipping mere creatures, 
for he extends his prohibition of it against the Nestorian worship of 
Christ’s separate humanity, which is confessedly the highest of all mere 
creatures, 79, 225 and often in notes 183 and 679; and the Church has ap- 
proved his utterances against it in his Two Epistles which were approved 
at Ephesus, and has condemned Nestorius’ assertions of the lawfuiness of 
his relative worship of Christ’s separate humanity; see the text of pages 
79-98; 221-224; 331, 3323 459-469; note 1046, pages 487, 488, 489. 

Cyrilin his Long Epistle to Nestorius, condemns his relative wor- 
ship of Christ’s separate humanity; and his co-worshipping that humanity 
with God the Word, and his co-calling that Man God with God the Word, 
221-223; 69, note; and in his Anathema VIII. on pages 331, 332, he curses 
those errors; and the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema IX. 
curses the Nestorian Man-Worship, page ii. of the Preface. See most 
clearly Nestorius’ Blasphemies 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, pages 459-469, and 
Note F., pages 529-551. See this whole topic of Nestorius’ relative wor- 
ship of Christ’s separate humanity treated of in note 156, pages 61-69, and 
notes 169, 171, 172; Cyril against Theodoret condemns the Nestorian 
‘unity of dignities,’’ and the giving the name Sow (prerogative to God 
the Word) to His humanity, relative conjunction, and the givitig equality 
of honors to the mere created humanity put on with God the Word, 67, 
68, note; Nestorius’ Counter Anathema VIII. and the Creed ascribed to 
Theodore of Mopsuestia are for Relative Worship, 68, 69; that Creed 
condemned by Ephesus, and Nestorius’ Relative Worship one cause for 
his deposition, 69, note; see page 112, note; the Nestorian attempt to 
dodge Cyril’s charge of worshipping a mere man, Christ’s humanity, by 
saying that they worshipped both Natures together, used by Theodoret, 


Index I1.—General Index. 641 


116, note; condemned by Cyril, zbzd., and on pages 79-86 and 221-224, 
and in his Anathema VIII., all of which places are ratified by the whole 
Church in the Third World-Council; that co-worship is anathematized in 
Anathema IX. of the Fifth Council, 116, note; Cyril condemns it again 
and again in note 183, pages 79-128; note 582, page 225, and in note 679, 
pages 332-362; Nestorius’ statement on page 461 of this work, ‘‘/ separate 
the Natures, but I unite the bowing,’ counted as part of his Blasphemies, 
449; and made one of the grounds of his deposition, 449, 461, 486-489; 
Cyril brands that uniting the bowing as am ‘“nsult” to “216 superior 
being [God the Word] ὅν dragging down His Better Nature into dts- 
honor, 87; as perversely proclaiming “two gods, one who 15 such in Na- 
ture and in reality, that is the Word Who has come out of God the Father, 
and another besides Him, [ἃ mere creature, Christ’s humanity, ] wo zs 
co-named [by the Nestorians] God with Him,’’ 88; as nevertheless Man 
Worship, 88, 90, and as adding ‘“‘a worshipped Man to the Holy and 
Consubstantial Trinity,’’ and that without shame, 89, and as Tetradism, 
go-98. Cyril bases all worship of the Son on the fact that the Logos is 
there, 215, note 548; Nestorianism by its denial of the Inman and by its 
worship of a creature is branded by the Third World Synod as an Afos- 
tasy, see 257, note, and subnote ‘‘s,’? and Relative Worship; see further 
on its Man-Worship, note 892, pages 451, 452; the ancient belief that 
Nestorius was a Man-Worshipper is testified to by the Third Ecumenical 
Synod and the Fifth and by all the facts in the case; the modern view 
that he was innocent, and differed from Cyril and from the Orthodox in 
words only is condemned by both Synods, and by his own statements, 
and is opposed to all the data given, 452, text, and notes 892, 894. 
NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES; 

3. HIS DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ECONOMIC APPROPRIATION, 
which was maintained by Cyril and Ephesus TO AVOID WORSHIPPING A 
Man, that is, TO AVOID CREATURE WORSHIP; xxill., XXiv., XXXV., 
xxxvi. See Economic Appropriation. Nestorius, in his Ecumenically 
condemned Epistle to Cyril denies the dof&trine of Economical Appropri- 
ation again and again, 156, 158, 159, 163-165, and ignorantly and slander- 
ously makes it out to be Theopaschitism, and to ‘‘delong to the errone- 
ous opinions of the heathen, or the errors of Apollinaris, who was 
smitten in mind, and of Arius, and of amind sick with the other heresies, 
or rather with whatever is worse than these.’  Acacius of Melitine cen- 
sures him for such slanderous language, 168, 169. Memnon of Ephesus 
brands his Epistle as ‘‘/u// not only of slander but also of blasphemy,” 
169. ‘Theodotus of Ancyra says of that Epistle, ‘‘ We decide that the 
Epistle of Nestorius is foreign to the right faith, and we judge those who 
hold to tts teachings to be aliens from the faith of Christians,’? 170. See 
much more to the same effect in the testimonies on pages 166-178. Theo- 
dotus of Ancyra testifies that Nestorius denied Economic Appropriation, 
400-414; so Acacius testifies of a Nestorian bishop, 417; Cyril and Athan- 
asius for it, 115, note; the Council condemns Nestorius for denying it, 
488, note 1046. 


642 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Cyril of Alexandria, in his Shorter Epistle, explains and defends the 
doctrine of Economie Appropriation, 74-78, and exhorts Nestorius to 
hold to it and to teach it, 112-120, as well as the other Orthodox doctrines 
specified by Cyril in that Epistle. Economic Appropriation necessary to 
avoid Man-Worship, note 173, pages 74-76; 217, note 551; Economic Ap- 
propriation, notes 180, 181, 182, pages 78, 79; how it differs from Com- 
munication of Properties, 75, note. 

Cyril, in his Long Epistle to Nestorius, teaches the doctrine of 
Economic Appropriation, and explains it as against Nestorius’ slanders 
on it, 224 to 231. Cyril forbids to separate the names of the Son between 
His two Natures, but ascribes them all to God the Word, the divine as 
naturally prerogative to God, the human as Economically appropriated 
to him, as he elsewhere explains to avoid Man-Worship (pages 237-240, 
Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set), 241-254, and Anathema IV. in Cyril’s Long 
Letter on page 325. Incidentally, Cyril teaches against the Apollinarians, 
that Christ’s humanity “7s 2 man animated by a rational soul,” 250; and 
while believing in Two Natures, he seems to confine the term Person to 
God the Word, to the exclusion of his perfect humanity in which as ina 
temple, according to Athanasius’ simile on pages 98, 99, 100, God the 
Word’s Substance dwells and has ever dwelt since, as the Creed of Nicaea 
has it, “He took flesh and put ona man’’ in Mary’s womb, 254, text, 
(compare under Person), or since, as the Creed of the Second World- 
Council has it, “For our salvation he came down out of the heavens, and 
took flesh of the Holy Ghost and Mary the Virgin and put on a man.” 
In his Anathema XII. Cyril curses every denier of the do¢trine of Eco- 
nomic Appropriation, pages 355-358. Nestorius denies it in his Blas- 
phemy 19, pages 475-478. See also all of Nestorius’ XX. Blasphemtes, 
pages 449-480, and note F., pages 529-551; see note 159, (really 158, see 
Errata), page 69, on Economic Appropriation as regards the expression 
Son of Man; and page 112, note. 


NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES; 


4. HIS ONE NATURE CONSUBSTANTIATION, AND CANNIBALISM 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία) ON THE EUCHARIST, xxvi., xxxv., li., 107, note; see heads 
I and 2 above on his persecution of the Orthodox, and Celestine’s and 
Cyril’s refusal to admit his depositions and excommunications. Cyril, 
in his Longer Epistle, condemns the Nestorian one-nature Consubstanti- 
ation and Cannibalism, 231-240, and their heresy, associated by them with 
it, that the flesh of a mere Man can quicken, Anathema XI., pages 347- 
354. See under Eucharist. See also Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18, and τὸ, 
end, pages 472-474 and 478; pages lxxxvii. and lxxxviii. of the Foremiatter, 
and under Ephesus in this Index, and 58, note; see also Aucharist in the 
General Index to Vol. 1. of Nicaea. The Third Ecumenical Council 
deposes Nestorius, among other things, for his Cannibal heresy on the 
Lord’s Supper, 488, note 1046. 


NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES} 


5. THE NESTORIAN WORSHIP OF THE ALLEGED REAL PRESENCE 
OF THE SUBSTANCE OF CHRIST’S HUMANITY IN THE EUCHARIST, XXVI.5 


Index Il.—General Index. 643 
|S ERS RN GO RSET RESET ESTE ACER RAGA SIE GUN στ στ τ ΤΣ 


106, 107, note; and under 7heodoret. Nestorius held to the real absence 
of the Eternal Substance of Christ’s Divinity from the Eucharist, but to 
the real presence of the substance of His flesh and blood there; and to 
the lawfulness of worshipping them relatively, 221-224, 459-469. Cyril 
of Alexandria agreed with him in asserting the real absence of the Sub- 
stance of Christ’s Divinity from the rite, but differed from him in deny- 
ing any real presence of the substance of Christ’s humanity in that sac- 
rament and consequently any worship of it there. Indeed Cyril every- 
where denies any worship to Christ’s separate humanity; see the Preface, 
page ii., the text of 221-224, and his Anathema VIIL., pages 331, 332, with 
which agree Anathemas IX. and XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, 
Preface, page ii.; and see in note 183, pages 109-112, where Ecumenically 
approved language is found against such worship. See under Aucharist. 
See also in note 606, pages 240-313, particularly pages 250-313; and note 
F., pages 529-551; and note 1046, pages 487, 488, 489, where we see that 
Theodoret, Nestorius’ disciple and champion, held to the worship of 
Christ’s humanity, (not at all His Divinity), in the Eucharist, which pre- 
sumably was Nestorius’ view also; see 7heodoret, and under Eucharist 
in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
. NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES; 

6. NESTORIUS MAKES A MERE MAN ONLY, THAT IS A MERE CREA- 
TURE, OUR HIGH PRIEST AND APOSTLE AND MEDIATOR AND INTER- 
CESSOR, AND MAKES HIM OFFER A SACRIFICE FOR HIMSELF. That 
would naturally lead to the invocation and worship of Christ’s mere 
humanity which would be what Cyril calls Man-Worship, that is Crea- 
ture-Worship. See Nestorius’ Blasphemies 16 and 17, pages 469-471, for 
his making our High Priest a mere man, that isa mere creature; and 
pages 459-469, where he makes that mere creature to be worshipable and 
gives him the name of God; and page 471, where he makes him, the sin- 
less, offer a sacrifice for himself. See also note F., pages 529-551. Cyril 
contends in effect in his writings here and there, that our only Intercessor 
and Advocate in heaven is God the Word by His humanity and that those 
offices of intercession and advocacy there are prerogative to God the 
Word to whom all the things of his hnmanity are to be Economically 
appropriated; and he therefore sweeps away all invocation of saints and 
all intercession in heaven by them; whereas Nestorius led the way to 
the intercession of saints in heaven, and to the invocation of them there 
by creatures on earth, by making a mere creature, his merely human 
Christ, our Advocate and Intercessor there, and by invoking him to help; 
see especially Nestorius’ language on page 471 and note 995 there, and 
page 489, note 1046, end. 

Cyril on the contrary ascribes all the High Priestly and Medi- 
atorial and Intercessory work of Christ to God the Word, though 
he teaches that he does the human part of the work by his humanity; 
and he denies that Christ offered for himself, for He had no sin, 255-267. 
As to the very important and necessary part of God the Word in the 


644 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ee 


work of High Priesthood, Mediation, and Intercession see in this Index 
under Christ, and in an Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, under Christ, Invo- 
cation, and Prayer. 

NESTORIUS AND HIS HERESIES; 

7. CYRIL SHOWS THAT THE Worps, “He shall glorify Me,” (John 
xvi., 14), U[TERED BY CHRIST OF THE SPIRIT, DO NOT SHOW THAT HE 
WAS A MERE MAN. HE SHOWS THAT THEY ARE PERFECTLY CONSONANT 
WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE UTTERER IS GOD THE WORD, 268-285. 

Nestorius in his Blasphemy 15, pages 467-469, makes those words of 
Christ to mean that God the Holy Ghost glorified Christ’s mere humanity, 
and asserts that “the Father made the humanity taken, [not God the 
Word], fo sit down with Himself,” that is made a mere creature to share 
that honor which is aye prerogative to the Logos, who is inside the Man 
taken. See also note F., pages 529-551 of this volume, where the rest of 
Nestorius’ Heresies, as well as the seven above, are more specifically 
stated. 

Nestorius; his Book of Sermons, xxxi., 31, 32; some new headings to them 
made up by Garnier, 1.; his great power as Bp. of Constantinople, xxxii.; 
refuses to heed Cyril’s admonitions, and tries to win Celestine of Rome to 
his side, xxxvi.; grounds of his deposition, xxxyiii.; its justice, xxxviii., 
SRI IK, 

At Ephesus Nestorius walls his house in by a multitude of soldiers, 
168, note 354; ‘“‘convicied himself of teaching a strange doétrine,’’ 169, 
text, and note 361; its originators, zb7d.; this applies to his denial of the 
Inman, to his Man-Worship, etc., 757d. ; egotism and assumption as to wis- 
dom and knowledge common to him and to other heretics, 2674. 

Nestorius Ecumenically condemned Epistle to Cyril; its contents, 155, 158, 
159-161, 165; it is read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council, and is 
branded as contrary to the Faith of Nicaea and to the Ecumenically ap- 
proved Shorter Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, and is condemned and 
anathematized and he with it, 154-178, where strong and clear and just 
testimonies are borne against it and him by the Bishops in giving their 
votes. Compare ‘Nestorius and his Heresies’? in this Index. His 
Epistle contains an alien Gospel and therefore is anathematized, 173; is 
contrary to the Tradition and the Faith of the Universal Church, 170; its 
«dogmas? are ‘‘to the pollution and the ruin’’ of those who follow Nes- 
torius, 173; its heresies are of darkness and of Belial, 174; are ““etcked 
opinions,” 175; its teaching branded as “the impious Jaith” of ‘‘the 
heretic Nestorius;?’ ‘the impious doétrine of Nestorius; as “impious 
religion,” 177, 178; every one who communicates with Nestorius, and 
every one who does not anathematize him is anathematized, 176, 177, 178; 
his mind clear from his Epistle, 404-414; in it he denies Economic Ap- 
propriation and the Incarnation, 404-414; on the basis of “zs letters and 
writings,” etc., he is deposed, 486-488. Heading of his Epistle in some 
editions, 155, note 290; its place in the arrangement of the Acts, 155, 
note 292; he denies the Incarnation, 176, text, and note 297; held 


Index Il.—General Index. 645 


that the sense of the Nicene Creed and of Holy Writ was involved in the 
controversy between him and Cyril, 156, note 297; how Nestorius differed 
from Cyril and the Orthodox on God the Word’s being in a Man, 157, 
note 308; Nestorius denies the Inman again, 158; in what senses he uses 
Economy and Conjunction, 158, notes 308 and 309; again squints at denial 
of the Inman, 158, text and note 310; impliedly brands the Orthodox 
doctrine on it as a wicked heresy, 158, text, and note 311; again denies 
the Incarnation, 158, text, and note 312; injustice after all this of those 
who vilify the Third Council for condemning him, 159, note 312; mistakes 
the doctrine of Economic Appropriation for Theopaschitism, 159, text, 
and notes 313, 316; see Economic Appropriation, and note 334, page 163; 
Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, blames him for denying Economic Appro- 
priation, 168, notes 355, 357; Nestorius was a persecutor of those who 
believed in the Inman and rejected his Man-Worship, 192, note 476. See 
also Pelagians. Nestorius misrepresents the Orthodox do¢trine of the 
Inflesh, 158, 159, text, and note 314; again denies the birth of God the 
Word out of the Virgin, 161, text, and note 317; he denies it for the fifth 
time in one Epistle, 162, text, and note 331. How Nestorius and Cyril 
differed on the Eucharist, 162, note 330; the Third Ecumenical Council 
follows Cyril, z6zd.,; Nestorius admits a conjun@ion, not a real union of 
Christ’s two Natures, 163, text and note; for the sixth time in one Letter 
he denies the Inman, 164, text, and note; Romanus of Rhaphia anathe- 
matizes his heresies in accordance with Galat.i., 8, 9; Evoptius brands 
his heresies as resulting in ‘‘the pollution and ruin of the men who fol- 
lowed him,” 173, note; that is true not only of those guilty of the Nes- 
torian worship of Christ’s humanity, but much more of those who wor- 
ship the Virgin Mary, saints, pictures, graven images, crosses, etc., 27d. ,; 
Nestorius persistent in his denial of the Inflesh, 187, note 446; IgI, note 
473. Evoptius pronounces his heresy ‘‘a counterfeit of the dottrine of 
Orthodoxy,’ and brands him as ‘deserving of all punishment before 
God and men,’’ 173. 

Nestorius, a worshipper of a Man, note 338, page 164; worshipped 
Christ’s sweatings, etc., 164, note 338; Cyril and the Orthodox refused all 
Nestorian and Cosubstancer Man-Worship, zézd.; his Man worship and 
other heresies to ‘‘the pollution and ruin of the men who followed him,” 
173, note 376; that is true of all who worship the Virgin Mary, saints, 
angels, images painted or graven, or crosses, and of all who worship any 
thing but God, zé7d.,; persistent in his Man Worship, 187, note 446; of 
‘““mpious aim,’ 2bid., text; the three summonses to him, 188, note 449; 
I9I, note 473; 196, note 496; the sentence on him for his denial of the 
Inman, and for his Man-Worship, etc., just and ratified by Christ, 2d7d. 

Nestorius, his XX. Blasphemies,; xxxviii., li.; is condemned and deposed for 
them, z47d., they are read in Act I., 449-479; are termed “‘blasphemies,”’ 
“horrible and blasphemous,” ““Blasphemy,”’ and are made an “‘Accusa- 
tion against him,’ 449, 480; is deposed for them. They embrace his 
heresies in denying the Incarnation, in worshipping a mere creature, 


646 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Christ’s separate humanity, as both in heaven, and in the bread and wine 
of the Eucharist, in affirming one-nature Consubstantiation, etc.; see 
them in full on pages 449-480, and see them specified under different 
heads in note F., pages 529-551; see also in this Index under WVestorius 
and his Heresies. The Third Synod says that ‘‘Our Lord Jesus 
Anointed * * * has been blasphemed by him,’’ 487, 488. Nestorius’ 
XX. ‘‘Blasphemies’’ recorded in the Aé¢ts as such, 449, text, and note 
879; 479, note 1022. Nestorius’ heresies branded as ‘‘voveltzes,’’ 182; 479 
text, and note 1021 on page 478; as the cause of the loss of souls, Ig1; 
Celestine has read that he is sound against Pelagianism, but if so does. 
not see why he entertains Pelagians, 193. See under Nestorius and his 
Heresies. Watin translations of Nestorius’ Blasphemy 18 (which is on the 
Eucharist), note 1007, page 474; the Greek of it there; references to Cyril 
of Alexandria on it, zbzd., the English translation of Blasphemy 18, 472, 
473 and 474, text; see Eucharist. On the whole subject of Nestorius’ 
XX. Blasphemies, see most fully on pages 529-551, “Note /.—The 
Twenty Passages from Nestorius, for which he was condemned and de- 
posed by the Universal Church in its Third Ecumenical Synod.” The 
matter regarding those XX. Passages is arranged in four columns; in 
column 1, the number of the Passage is mentioned; in column 2, we are 
told where in Nestorius’ Sermons it is found; in column 3, we are told 
what error or errors are taught by Nestorius in each passage, and what 
Anathema of Cyril or the Fifth Synod condemns it or them; and column 
4 tells where Cyril of Alexandria quotes and refutes it or them, 529. The 
capital letters tell us to which class of Nestorius’ errors, a passage or a 
part of a passage belongs. These are again included under five general 
heads, I, 2, 3, 4and 5; 529 to 531; next come the four column pages 534- 
548; the XX. Passages are from Nestorius’ Homilies, that is Sermons, 
549; but there is a difference as to their arrangement, 549; Pusey on it, 
549; Chrystal’s “Arrangement of the Twenty Passages of Nestorius for 
which he was deposed in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, accord- 
ing to the Sermons from which they were taken,” 549, 550; the Latin 
headings as in Migne’s edition, 549; they are not Nestorius’, but are sim- 
ply additions of copyists or editors, and they differ in Galland from those 
in Migne; and are of no authority, 550, 551. 

Nestorius’ Epistles; 185-189; at the end of the voting on his Efzséle 
to Cyril we read in Act I., ‘All the Bishops shouted out together, ‘Let 
him be anathema who does not anathematize Nestorius!’ ‘This curses 
all who defend him or any of his heresies, or share any of them, includ- 
ing his denial of the Inman, his creature worship, his errors on the Eu- 
charist, etc., 176-178; see Hucharist, Cannibalism, etc.; was πο το 
opposed by eae of Nazianzus, 439, note 802. 


Nestorius the Heresiarch; his name in the Adts, 30, 31, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52,. 


53, 54, 129-154 repeatedly; Cyril’s Long Letter to him, 206-358; 360, 391, 
392, 399, 416, 417; 503, where he is called “ὦ neue 504. 


Index IIl.—General Index. 647 


Nestorius the Heresiarch; was called from Antioch to be Bishop of 
Constantinople, 181, note 405; his birth-place 192, note 478; his writings 
said to be preserved in Syriac, note 1021, page 478. 

Nestorius; impious, 41, note 100; references to his heresies and Cyril against 
them, etc., 113-115; 424, note. His invocation of his merely human High 
Priest is a sort of saint worship, 372, note. The ultimatumsto him from 
Rome and Alexandria, note 703, page 414; his boorish treatment of 
Bishops sent to him by Cyril of Alexandria, and his violation of his own 
word and engagement, note 705, on page 415; his misrepresentation, 
against knowledge, of Cyril and the Orthodox, notes 706, 714 and 717; 
denies Economic Appropriation, and the Inman, and held to Man-Wor- 
ship, note 714, page 415, and notes 716, 720, 721, 722; there is no excuse 
for defending him, note 716; he was shallow, notes 717, 720, 721, and the 
text on pages 416, 417; his wrong and unreasonable course at Ephesus, 
and the heresies for which he was condemned, note 1046, pages 487, 488, 
489; The Council’s course towards him fair and wise, 207d. 

Newman, J. H.,; the Romanizer; το, note 8; 102-106, note; never understood 
the VI. Synods; hence his fall into idolatry, 377, note; his error against 
Cyril and Ephesus as to Christ’s Priesthood, 376, note; his wrong trans- 
lation of Θεοτόκος, note 741, page 420. ᾿ 

Newton, R. Heber; an opponent of the Nicene faith, 9; see his name in the 
General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 

Nicaea, Ecumenical Council of, A. D. 325; convoked by an Emperor, 5, 6; helped 

by him, 6; Cyril of Alexandria writes of its Syw6ol/, that is Creed, that it was 
‘defined through the illumination of the Spirit’ by ‘‘the Fathers gathered 
aforetime tn the city of the Nicaeans,’’ xxii.; it isin Cyril’s Longer Epistle 
and was read in it in ActI. of Ephesus; 213, 214; Cyril there teaches that 
the Holy Spirit spoke in the holy Fathers when they made it, zb7d., that 
expression accords with Scripture, 214, note 541. See ‘‘Council, the First 
Ecumenical,’ in this volume; and ‘‘Crveed ofthe First Ecumenical Coun- 
cil,’? and ‘‘Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Synod,’’ in the General Index 
to Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set. The Nicene Creed is explained by Cyril 
against the perversion of it by Nestorius, xxii.; xxxviii.; it istermed ‘‘the 
Symbol of the Church’s faith,” tbid., is recited in A&t I. of the Council, 
zbid., and 50, 51; is termed by Cyril ‘“‘the prous Definition of the Faith,’ 
xxv.; quoted in his Shorter Epistle, 60, 61, 73, 74, and notes151, 168, 174, 
175, and referred to repeatedly in the voting on it as a Criterion by which 
to judge of its Orthodoxy, 129-154; 51, note 139; is perverted by Nesto- 
rius to teach the denial of the Inman, 155, 156, 157; it is embodied in 
Cyril’s Long Epistle to Nestorius and is there explained at some length, 
213, and after; the two forms of it, 50, note 138; 51, note 139; how the 
VI. Ecumenical Synods vindicated and explained its true sense against 
the perversions of Creature Worshippers, z67d.; when it was displaced in 
baptism and in the Eucharist by the Creed of the Second Synod, 7é7d. ; 
how the Third Synod explained it against the Creature-Server Nestorius 
and against all forms of Relative Service to Christ’s separate humanity, 


648 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


to saints, graven images, and pictures, relics, crosses, etc., zbzd.,; is mainly 
in the words of Scripture, its sezse wholly Scriptural, 167, note 351; see 
on it note 654, page 319; and under Council, the Second Ecumenical; 
the teaching of the two Ecumenical Creeds on God the Word and on the 
Holy Ghost, 528; absurd multiplications of the Logos against their doctrine 
on Him, 528. 

Nicaea, the idolatrous Conventicle of in A. D. 787; ἵν.» x., xlii., note; xlix,;it 
opposed the doétrines of the first VI. Ecumenical Synods on the invoca- 
tion and worship of creatures, relics, images, etc., and on the Eucharist, 
52, note; God cursed every nation which received it, and still curses all 
who hold to it, 175, note 388; its ignorant and false assertion as to the 
use of ¢ype or symbol for the Eucharistic bread and wine after consecra- 
tion, 269, note; See 7arasius, its President, and Theodore of the Studium, 
its idolatrous partisan; it contradited the Holy-Ghost-led decisions of 
the Third Ecumenical Council which forbid us to invoke, bow to, or in 
any other way worship living creatures, and which forbid all worship of 
images, pictured and graven, all crosses and relics, and all worship of 
any person or thing except the Consubstantial Trinity, iv. 


Ο. 


Obiter ditta; things passingly said; the Universal Church not responsible for 
them, 486, note 1039. 

One Natureites; have corrupted Cyril of Alexandria’s writings, 173, note; see 
Monophysites, and Two Natures of Christ. 

Origen; Ecumenically condemned, ix., xlix.; his error on the risen body, 513- 
517; well uses types or symbols or their synonyms of the Eucharistic 
bread and wine, 269, note. 

Osiander, the Lutheran; on Christ’s High Priestly Sacrifice, 377, note. 

Oxford Library of the Fathers; it contains the historic testimony and the 
opinions of mere individuals, however eminent they may be; but this 
Set of the Six Councils of the whole Christian World contains the sound 
and irrevocable verditts and final and supremely authoritative decisions 
of the Episcopate of the Whole Church, the Christ-Appointed Supreme 
Court of all Christendom, on every subject on which they treat, xi. 


χ᾽ 


Papal Infallibility, see Peter, and Honortius. 

Parec, x\., text, and note ‘“‘a.”’ 

Parish; how used anciently; 497, note 1114. 

FParium, 153, note 285. 

Pask, that is Easter, that is, the Christian Passover; disputes before Nicaea, 
as to the day on which it should be kept, xxxix-xlv.; the term aster 
pagan and not to be used, 35, note 89. See under Pask in Vol. I. of 
Nicaea in this Set. 

Patriarchs; only greater Metropolitans, 5; 32, note 73; 38, text. 


Index IIT.—General Index. 649 


Paul the Apostle; rebukes Peter for doctrinal heresy, xlviii.; quoted and referred 
to by Celestine, 191, 192. 

Paul of Samosata,; his character and heresies and end; the last two similar to 
Nestorius’, xxi., xxxv., 192, text, and note 479. 

Paul the Silentiary, his account of a holy table, 248. note. 

FPaulianists; 192, note 497; their baptism invalid, 2614. See Baptism. 

Pentecost, 36, text; the day set by the Emperors in A. D. 431 forthe Third Synod 
to open, Ζδίά., the term Whitsunday used among us for it is wrong, page 
36, note go. 

Feriodeutes, that is an /tinerant; note 1112, page 496; his order and fun@ions, 
ibid. 

Person, (Πρόσωπον), and Subsistence, Being, (Ὑπόστασις), used for God the Word 
alone, Who, however, is inside His flesh, 254, text, and 313, note 616. 
See Christ, and pages 329, note 671, end; and compare note 674, pages 
329, 330, and note 675, pages 330, 331. Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council in describing Nestorius’ worship of Christ’s separate 
humanity uses ferson (Πρόσωπον) of the Logos alone; see it, and page 580 
of this Index. 

Personal Union, see Hypostatic Union. 

Peter the Apostle; his fallibility shown from Scripture, xlv.-xlix., and 39, note; 
that his successors in the See of Rome are also fallible is shown from the 
decision of the Sixth World Council on that point in the case of his suc- 
cessor, Honorius, xlviii., xlix., and 39, note 94. Attempts of Peter’s 
Roman successors to get Appellate Jurisdiction outside of Italy resisted, 
39, note 94. See under Africa, and Aurelius, and Hilary of Arles, and 
note on pages 427, 428. 

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300-311, and Martyr, 418-420; see there his 
witness on the Inman, etc.; see also page lxxxvii. of the Forematter in 
this volume, and under Zphesus A. D. 231 in this Index; his literary 
remains but few, page 514. 

Peter the Fuller, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch A. D. 471-488, led the way 
to the worship of saints, 1xviii. 

Peter Mogila, and his Confession, for the Greek form of T ransubstantiation, 525. 

Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and chief of the Secretaries, lii.; his name in 
the Acts, 30, 46, 48, 52, 179, 204, 205, 359, 418, 449, 479, 481. 

Philip of Sida; τοι, 102, note; a work of his against Julian the Apostate wrongly 
ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria, 7614. 

Photinus, the heresiarch, xxi.; Nestorius accused of holding to his errors, 757d. 

Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople; 102, note; 123, note; 424, note; an image 
worshipper, 124, note, and creature worshipper, 124, note. 

Pictures, worship of forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see under Images, and 
Image-Worship, 52. See Augustine. See also Pifures in the General 
Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea in this Set. 

Folemians; 108. See Apollinarians, and Timotheans, and Synustasts. 

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna; his dispute with Anicetus, Bp. of Rome, xxxix., 
xlv.; called John’s disciple, and Irenaeus’ teacher, 269, note. 


650 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus; Victor, Bishop of Rome, tries to get him excom- 
municated by the whole Church, but fails, xxxix; see Viéior, and Quar- 
todecimans, and Folycarp. 

Pope, its meaning, 155, note. 

Porphyrius of Antioch; on Chrysostom, xviii., note C. 

Possidonius, the Deacon, xxxvii.; 31, text, and note 66, 181, 402. 

Potamon, Bp.; Cyril’s representative at Constantinople, lxxvi., 364. 

Prayer; see under Worship, and /nvocation here and in Vol. I. of Nicaea. 

Priest; used for Bishop, 195, 196, 484, 190, note 465; 196, note 495; 485, note 
1036; kerv and hierev used for Priest, ibid.; see Priesthood, and Priestly, 
and 484, note 1035. Christians, ministers and people, are the only true 
priesthood, 508, 512; what doctrines a Christian minister orlaic must hold 
to in order to be an offerer acceptable to God, 512; compare in the Index 
of Holy Writ under I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i., 6, in this volume and in 
the Scripture Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea; every Christian a priest, 508, 512; 
Priest used for Bishop, 195, text, and note 491. 

Priesthood, Christ’s; 258. See Christ. 

Priesthood, the doftrine of the Christian, 39, note 95; 195, note 491; Christian 
clerics and people priests in a higher sense than the sons of Aaron and 
the Israelitish people were, and their offerings higher because more 
spiritual, 39, note 95; 195, note 491; what are the functions of the Epis- 
copate in the Priesthood, 195, note 491; see Bishops. 

Priestly, used for Episcopal, 485, note 1036, and probably, 488, text. 

Proclus, spurious productions ascribed to him, xlix., 1., 411, 412. 

Prosdocius,; 424, note. 

Protestant; God calls Himself so, in effect, 210, note 533; in whatsense, 207d. ; 
in that sense of condemning and crushing all image-worship and creature- 
worship we all must be intense Protestants, ibid. ; two senses of the term 
like Catholic and Orthodox; we must hold to the sound, the VI. Synods’ 
sense, and discard the bad sense, z67d.,; different names applied to the 
Orthodox in different ages, 211, note; different names of the unsound 
communions, 2014. 

Province, the, and its Synod; note 702, page 413; see also Church Government. 

Provinces, Church; 479, note 1023. See also under Church Government. 

Puritanism; wrong conception of, 441, note 816. 

Pusey, FE. B., the father, the idolatrizer; x., xii., 9, 10; corrupts the Eucharist 
into paganism, 107, note; and is anathematized antecedently by the 
Third Council, 107, note; 250, note; and 531, 532, 533, and all class 4 
of Passages mentioned on page 531; they are found on pp. 529-551; his 
misrepresentation of Cyril on the Eucharist, 252, note; 271, note, and 
sub-note ‘‘d’’: in his scoundrelly Hzvenicon he favors image-worship and 
the invocation of saints, 222, note; was a Latinizer and mediaevalizer, 
not a primitivizer, 2d7d. 

Pusey, P. E., the sonof E. B., the editor of the Greek of Cyril’s Wo1kes πὶ oy 
note; an instance of {πὸ mistranslation, note on pp. xxli., xxili.; his 
translation of Cyril’s Works ox the Incarnation faulty, xxxv.; 253, nate 


Index II.—General Index. 651 
τος - EE ane ce ee er aE a AP τε Laem ταν AUP CBOE ed ne δον sp 
256, note; 472, note 995; instances of his mistranslation, 7did.,; and 532, 


text and sub-note “‘a’’; could translate σχετική rightly when he would, 
532, sub-note ‘‘a.”’ . 


Ὁ. 


Quartodecimans, Nestorius does much against them, xxviii; Rome attempted 
to put them out of the Church by the Appeal to the Church distributed 
in sees, but failed, xxxix.-xlv.; they are condemned by the first Ecumen- 
ical Synod and branded as heretics by the Second, and those decisions 
are accepted by the whole Church, xliv., text, and note “Ὁ. 

‘Quaternion, what? note 880, pages 449, 450. 


He. 

Rabi Baba; 478, note. 

Real Presence; the expression and matter on it, 301, 302, note, and subnote 
“a,” 284, note; and note 1020, page 478, and see note 606, pages 240-313. 

Rebirth, the, of Baptism; see Regeneration and Dipping. 

Reformation, the; a source of blessings, xlii., note. 

Regeneration, that 1s Rebirth, includes necessarily the emersion of Baptism, 
448, note 872. 

relative Conjunétion,; explained by Cyril in note 156; see especially, pages 64- 
66 of that note; (see Nestorius and his fleresies, and Nestorius); 67. 
See also under σχέσιν, σχετικῆν, and σχετικῶς, in the Zndex to the Greek 
Words and Greek Expressions in this volume; and 69, note; 79-90, note, 
where Relative Conjunction is explained, as opposed to the Substance 
Union. See Union of Christ's two Natures, and Man- Worship, and 
113, note; and 114, note; Relative Conjunction and denial of the Inman 
the ground of the Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ’s humanity, note 
156, pages 61-69; note 183, pages 118-128; and of Tetradism, 90-108; all 
those errors condemned by the Universal Church in the Six Synods, 108- 
112; 219, note 365; Nestorian writers for Relative Conjunction and the 
Relative Worship of Christ’s humanity, 112-128; Cyril again explains the 
Nestorian Conjunction, 219, note 365; both heresies condemned by Cyril, 
note 156, pages 61-69, and note 183, pages 114, 115, 116, ΤΙ EIS) Tio: 
according to Nestorius’ Relative Conjunftion idea, God the Word dwelt 
in his humanity, not by His Divine Substance, but only by ¢he influences 
of His Spirit as He dwelt in the Prophets, 118, note; 164, note 334, 335: 
263, subnote ‘‘z7,”’ note 747, page 421; results of Nestorian heresies on 
the Union, 219, note 365. 

Relative Conjunction ends in Relative Worship of a mere creature, 

Christ’s separate humanity, notes 963, 965, 966, pages 466, 467; God-given 
insight of the Universal Church in forbidding it, note 966, page 467. See 
also under Relative Worship in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in 
this Set, and under Relative Worship in this Index. Relative Conjunc- 
tion called by a Nestorian ‘‘the supreme conjunétion,’’ 126, note; and 


652 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


“the divine Conjunction,’ 90, note. See, further, all the references at the 
end of Relative Indwelling in this Index. 

Relative Indwelling; explained by Cyril, 66; (See Cyril and Nestorius and 
his Heresies); see also under σχέσιν, σχετικῆν, and σχετικῶς in the Ludex to 
the Greek Words and the Greek Expressions iu this volume; Relative 
indwelling connected with Relative Worship of Christ’s separate hu- 
manity, 67, note; 74, note 171; 114, note; 164, note; 256, note; See Union 
of Christ’s two Natures; how it differs from the Substance Indwelling, 
96, note; 406, note 690; 440, 441, note 811; see Man-Worship, and 96, 
note; references on Relative Indwelling, 112, note; 113 and 114, note. 
See Relative Conjunction, and note 601, page 239; how the error of Rel- 
ative Indwelling affects the Nestorian view of the Lord’s Supper; it is 
rejected by St. Cyril, 238-241, text and notes 601-605; 256, note; 257, 
note; God the Word relatively indwel!s every Christian, 256-261; how, 
ibid.; Relative Indwelling conjoined by Nestorius with Relative Wor- 
ship, that is paganism, 256, note; both errors denounced by Cyril again 
and again, 2614. On Relative Indwelling see Cyril’s X//. Chapters, 
Chapter XI.; Athanasius against the heresy, 418-423, text, and notes to 
it, especially notes 754, 755, 756; 758; Cyril blames Nestorius for holding 
merely to a velative indwelling of God the Word in the Man in the Vir- 
gin’s womb, and for his denial of the actual indwelling of the Substance 
of God the Word in that Man. See also Relative Conjunétion, Relative 
Participation, and Relative Worship, and Union of Christ's two Natures, 
in this Index, and Relative Worship in the Index to volume I. of Wicaea 
in this Set, and under σχέσιν, σχετικῆν, σχετικῶς in the Greek Index, and in 
the Greek Index in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria 
on the Incarnation against Nestorius.’’ 

Relative Participation; how it differs from the Incarnation, 259, 260, note, and 
sub-note ‘‘z’’; and 264, note and sub-note ‘‘ ££,’’ Arius held that Christ 
is ‘“‘not true God,” but “is called God by participation’’ [of God’s Spirit] 
“only like others,’’ 260, note “‘z.’’? Athanasius, Cyril, and the Third Coun- 
cil condemn that blasphemy, 261, sub-note ‘‘z’’; 264, note, and sub-note 
“kk.” Relative Partaking, note 640, page 318. ‘‘Relative Participation” 
of God the Word in the Eucharist, 532. See, further, all the references. 
at the end of Relative Indwelling in this Index. 

Relative Worship; forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; 221, note 580; and by the 
Vth Synod, zd7d.,; is heathen, zbzd.; see Nestorius and his Heresies, 
Heresy 2, and Worship, and 74, note 171; and Union of Christ’s Two 
Natures; see Man Worship, and notes 183, 582, and 679, especially pages 
96, 106; Nestorius deposed for it, 107, note, and 221, note. See Sazzis, 
worship of; the connection between mere Relative Indwelling and Rela- 
tive Worship, 114, and 120, 121, note; both condemned by Cyril, notes 
183, 582 and 679; 125-127, note; 257-260, note; a Creed which teaches both 
heresies condemned by Ephesus, 218, note 363; different forms of relative 
worship which exist to-day among tne Latins, the Greeks, the Nestorians, 
or the Monophysites, 221, note 580; the worship of the Sacred Heart 


Index IT.—General Index. 653 


among Romanists, 267d.; Cyril and the Ecumenical Synods against the 
Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ’s humanity, references to them, 
note 580, pages 221-225; Pusey’s mistranslations on, 2d7d.; quotations 
from Nestorius for the Relative Worship of Christ’s humanity, 7zd7d., 
Nestorianism, because of its denial of the Inman, and its relative worship 
of Christ’s humanity, a creature, branded by the Third Synod as an 
‘‘Abostasy,’’ 224, note; 257, note, and subnote ‘‘a,’’ 210, note 533; the 
idolatrous Israelites worshipped Jehovah through the golden calf in the 
wilderness, 249, subnote ‘‘a,;’’ that is they worshipped it relatively only, 
zbid., and 210, note 533; as they did the calves at Bethel and at Dan, 210, 
note 533; we must hate all such sins, zbzd.,; Relative Indwelling and 
Relative Worship denounced by St. Cyril, note on pages 256, 257; both 
heresies taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and anathematized in An- 
athema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, pages 422, 423, 424, note 
758; compare under Nestorius’ Heresy 2, and under Worship, Head “2, 
Co-glorifying a mere creature, Christ’s humanity, with God the Word,’’ 
and Head ‘‘3, Co-calling a mere creature, Christ’s humanity, God, with 
God the Word.’ Compare all the other Heads under ‘‘ Worship,’ the 
Relative Worship of Christ’s humanity anathematized by the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod and the Fifth; and much more all other forms of Relative 
Worship, 467, note 966; Romish and Greek forms of it, some of which 
are practiced by the Nestorians and the Monophysites, zd7d.,; the excuse 
of uniting the Worship of the Creator Word and the created Man alleged 
by the Nestorians refuted and condemned by Cyril and anathematized in 
his Anathema VIII. and in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod, notes 183, 
582 and 679; compare note on pages 114, 120, 121; 125-127, See, 
further, all the references at the end of Relative Indwelling in this Index, 
and under Relative Worship in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea 
in this Set. 

Relative Worship; by Nestorians? xviii.; forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see 
Ephesus, A. D. 431, and Creature Worship; and 249, subnote, as to 
Elisha’s bones, and the souls under the altar in Rev. vi. Relics ought to 
be done away, 5. Relics wrongly put under communion tables, 248-250, 
and subnote ‘‘a’’ on page 249. 

Revillout; on Senuti, |xii.-lxix. 

Ridley, Bp.; his reformatory tendencies warranted by Ephesus, Preface, i.; his 
poetic language, 438, note 801. 

Rome, Bishop of; subject to an Ecumenical Council, xli.-xlv., text and notes; 
39, note; is fallible, 489, note 1047; heresies which are now maintained by 
Rome against the VI. Ecumenical Synods, zdzd., they are anathematized 
by them, xlii., note; how the Greeks, and the Anglican formularies regard 
Rome, xlii., note; xliii., note; in what sense an Orthodox Bishop of Rome 
(none other) was ‘‘First among his equals,’’ xli., note; and xliv.; Rome 
now the chief fosterer of creature-worship, xli., 22, notes 22 and 26; and of 
cannibalism on the Eucharist, xlii., note; 22, note 26; its jurisdiction, 22, 
note 26; Ecumenical Canons base its privilege on the fact of its being the 


654 Act I. of Ephesus. 


capital city of the Romar Empire, 427, note; Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth 
Synod passed against the wish of Rome’s legates, Ζόζα., Rome cannot de- 
cide doctrine for the whole Church, 39, note 94; 40, note95. The Western 
Emperor Valentinian III. uses secular power to break down the Ecumen- 
ical Canons and give the Bishop of Rome Appellate Jurisdiction in his Em- 
pire 427, 428, note. ‘‘Peterand John were of equal honor, forasmuch as they 
were apostles,” etc., 218, text, and note 561; resistance of the British 
Church to Rome’s claims, 427, 428, note. See Leo I.; Rome was a 
chief champion in centuries vil. and Ix. against the Reforming party 
and for image worship, 473, note Iooo, end. Romish Canon Law is ~ 
partly made up of the False Decretals, and has done away in the West 
with the sway of the Ecumenical Canons, 512. See under Rome, Church 
of, and Rome, Bishop of, in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in 
this Set; blasphemous flattery of the satellites of the Pope of Rome in 
ascribing to him the title and the works of God, 509-512. 

Rome, Council at in A. D. 430, on the Nestorian controversy; xxxvi.; its action, 
ibid.,; referred to by Cyril, 209, text, and note 532, and page 213, text. 

Roumanians; may reform, and restore the faith, 524. 


CY 


Sacerdos, that is Priest; 39, note 95; see Priest and Herv. 

Sacerds, 39; see Priest and Herv, 

Sacerdotal Synod, 41; see Priest, Priesthood, Priestly, Sacerdos and Sacerds. 

Saint; the term not always prefixed to a godly man’s name, 441, note 816. 

Saints, Worship of; forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see under Creature Wor- 
ship, Worship, Relative Worship; invocation of saints, angels, and of 
any and all other creatures forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see /voca- 
tion of Christ’s humanity, and Invocation of Creatures, and Worship; 
error that saints pray for us in heaven, 381, note; the English Homily on 
Prayer on, 387, note; it is against invocation of them, zd7d., note, and 
pages 383-388, note. 

Sancroft, Arbp., and the Six English Bishops who withstood the tdolatrizer, 
James IT.,; 18. 

Sapor, the Persian Monarch; his folly and arrogance in taking a silly and 
proud title, 509. 

Saul, King; punished for false liberalism, 250, note. 

Schoolmen, faults of their compilations, 102, note. 

Scripture; ‘‘God-inspired,”’ xxii. 

Selenespondius, a Presbyter; 496; subscribes for ‘‘Cyril, Bishop of Pylae,”’ 496. 

Senate, the; at Chalcedon, 57, note. 

Senuti, the Monk, and Monophysite; spurious, Ixii.-lxix. 

Sessions of the Third Council; dates of, 5. 

Sethroetum, Sethroetus, and Sethroete; note 1123, page 498; Sethroetis, tbid. 

Seventh Day; abolished, xlvi., note ‘‘a.” 

Seventh Ecumenical Synod; a true one needed, 5, 6, 35, note 88; blessed work 


Index IT.—General Index. 655 


of, 203, note 514; will settle and abolish the idolatry and paganism of 
Rome, 524. 

Shipley; his heresy on the Eucharist, 271, note and subnote ‘6,’’ went at last 
to Rome, 77d. 

Sisinnius, Bp. of Constantinople; commended by Celestine, 180, 194, text. 

Sitting at the Communion, unknown in the primitive Church, 248, note. 

Six Ecumenical Councils, convoked by Emperors, not Popes, 5; see Ecumen- 
ical Councils; they should be embodied in our Church Code, and in that 
of the State for their best good, xxx., note. 

Slavs; hopes of their reform, 524. 

Smith’s (R. Payne) English translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on Luke, 
532. 

Socrates, the historian; his account of the rise of the Nestorian Controversy, 
XX., XXi., xxii.; his account of Nestorius’ energy against heretics, xxviii.- 
xxxi.; was Socrates a Novatian ἢ xxxi; as to Proclus’ alleged Sermons, 1. 

Sole-Born, in Cyril always means the Sole-Born out of the Father, that is God 
the Word, note 963, page 466. 

Sozomen, the historian; as to Proclus’ alleged Sermon on the Virgin Mary, 1. 

Spelling; different, in manuscripts; a cause of, 28, note 53. 

Spirit; used by Gregory of Nazianzus in the sense of Divinity, 440, text, and 
note 807; compare note 732, page 419. 

Stancaro, the Socinian,; on Christ’s High Priestly Sacrifice, 377, note. 

Stephen, Bp. of Rome; opposed by Cyprian, xlv. 

Stokes, Prof.; on Senuti, lxiv. 

Swearing on the Gospels; Bishops Acaciusand Theodotus, called upon by Fidus 
and Cyril to swear on the Gospels in giving their testimony regarding 
Nestorius and his heresies in the Third Ecumenical Council, 385-400. 

Symbol, Credal; see Creed. 

Symbols, the Eucharistic; 277, note; 278, note; 279, twice; 280, note; termed 
Symbols by Theodoret even after consecration, 278, note; 279, note; 280, 
note; 281, note; 282, note; 284, note; ‘‘the mystical symbols,’ 279, note; 
280, note; “the mystical symbol,’’ note on page 281; “‘vzsible symbols,” 
note on page 282; he bowed to, that is worshipped them, note on pages 
280, 282 and 277. 

Synusiasts; see Co-substancers, and Apollinarians, and Timotheans, and Val- 
entinian heretics. 

Syrian Monophysites,; profess at least to receive Ephesus, vi. 

Syrians; few of Cyril’s day were Orthodox, xviii. 


7. 


Table, Communion, still preserved by the Greeks, 248, note. 

Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the image-worshipper and creature-in- 
voker; his God-cursed death, his corrupting and ruining work, iv., x., 
249, note; 322, note 659. 

Tartars, the; God’s curse, 524; see under Arad. 


656 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Temple, Nestorius uses that term of Christ’s human body, note 957, page 465; 
his errors in denying the Inflesh of God the Word in it, and his worship 
of it, 465, note 958. See Nestorius and His Heresies. 

Tertullian, 269, note; on God the Word as ‘‘the Universal Priest of the Father,” 
371, note; on the refusal of Christians to use the word god of the Em- 
peror, 505. 

Tetrad, a, of paper; note 880, pages 449, 450. 

Tetradism, 90-128, note; see Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2; and Four- 
ism, 379, note; who the Tetrad were, 349, note; Nestorius’ worship of 
Christ’s separate humanity ends in Tetradism, instead of the Trinity, 466, 
note 965. 

Thanksgiving, the; see Eucharist. 

Theodora, the Empress; a curse, 6. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia; xi.,lii,; seealso Cyril and Ephesus; held to Nestorian 
heresies; on denial of the Inman and on creature worship, xvi., xvil., 
xx., 70, note; 111, note; 112, and 113, note; held that Christ’s humanity 
was made perfect by works, 72, note; 423, note; and to the relative wor- 
ship of it, zdid.; see under Christ; condemned Ecumenically, xviii., 
note; xlix., 70, note; 111, note; cursed by the Fifth World Council for 
his errors, among them for his error that Christ was merely an adopted 
son, imperfect in morals at first, and for his relative worship of Christ’s 
humanity, 111, note; and 423, note; 470, note 990; was one of the origi- 
nators of the Nestorian heresies, 169, note 361, and 456, note 914; (see 
also Pelagians); his error on the Inman anticipatively condemned by 
Gregory of Nazianzus; 439, note 802; St. Cyril wrote against him, 456, 
note 914. 

Theodore of the Studium; the persistent advocate of image worship and the 
worship of creatures, his sad death, 322, note 659. 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Nestorius’ chief champion; his errors on the 
Eucharist, and for the Worship of Christ’s humanity, not His Divinity, 
in it; and his creature worship, iii., xi., 115-116, note; 162, note 330; 
falsely accused Cyril of Apollinarianism, 271, note; refuted by Cyril, 
ibid.,; takes it for granted that Cyril did not co-worship Christ’s humanity 
with His Divinity, 352, note; (see Man-Worship); united the bowing to 
Christ’s two Natures, 115, 116; anathematized for it by the Fifth Synod, 
116, note; see also Cyril of Alexandria and Ephesus, and xii., xvi., 
xvii., xx.; his praise of Theodore of Mopsuentia, XVill., note; opposes 
Cyril, xxxvi.; favors Irenaeus, the Nestorian and digamist, 14, 15, note; 
his Nestorian errors condemned by the Fifth Synod, 31, note 61; 115, 116; 
denies the Incarnation, and the Substance-Union, (see Union of the Two 
Natures), affirms a mere Relative Union, (see Relative Conjunction, 
Relative Indwelling, etc.), and makes Christ a mere inspired Man, and 
teaches Man-Worship, note 156, pages 61-69; 115, 116, note; his errors 
condemned by Cyril, and by the whole Church, in Ecumenical Synods, 
ibid. Yet he condemned the worship of angels, xvi.; xvii., text, and 
note “‘c;”” opposed Cyril’s XII. Chapters, 116; heretical writings ascribed 


Index I1.—General Index. 657 


De re π 


to him, 123, note; submitted to the Third Council at last; his sincerity in 
so doing doubtful, 124, note; blasphemous chara¢ter of a writing ascribed 
to him, 125, note; was the chief champion of Nestorius on the Eucharist; 
of his one nature Consubstantiation, one nature real presence, worship of 
that alleged real presence of that one nature, Christ’s humanity, and the 
eating of the actual substance of Christ’s human flesh and the drinking 
of the actual substance of Christ’s real blood there, 277-286; Cyril sets 
forth the Orthodox do¢trine against all such errors, 286-294; his doctrine 
is approved by the Third Synod, ibid.; Theodoret and his Apollinarian 
opponent both held like Nestorius and Cyril that the real Substance of 
Christ’s Divinity is not on the Holy Table, and that we do not eat Christ’s 
Divinity in the Eucharist; but he differed from Cyril in holding that we 
eat His flesh and blood, note on pages 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 284; Theo- 
doret held that the Eucharistic “food 1s both a symbol and a type,’’ not 
“of the Divinity of the Lord Christ,” but ‘of His body and His blood,”’ 
and his Apollinarian or Monophysite opponent agreed with him, 278, 279. 
‘heodoret held that “216 mystic symbols’’ [the leavened bread and the 
wine of the Eucharist] ‘do not pass out of their own nature after the 
consecration. For they remain in their former substance and shape and 
appearance * * * and they are bowed to as being those things which 
[they] ave believed” |to be], 280, note; that ‘‘He [Christ] “honored the 
visible symbols with the appellation THE BODY and THE BLOOD, ot 
changing their nature but adding their grace to their nature,’’ 282, note; 
like Nestorius, his Master, he teaches that Christ’s body ‘‘after the resur- 
yection * * * was deemed worthy of the seat at the right hand’? [of 
the Father] “θα Is WORSHIPPED BY ALL THE CREATION ὧδ being en- 
titled the body of the Lord of nature,”’ 280, 281; that is the created body is 
worshipped relatively to God the uncreated Word; or as Nestorius words 
it in his Blasphemy 8, on page 461, text, “7 worship him’’ (the Man, that 
is Christ’s humanity] “‘who is worn, for the sake of Him (God the Word] 
who wears—I bow to him who is seen, for the sake of Him [God the 
Word] who is hidden. God 1s unseparated from Him [the Man] who 
appears. For that reason I do not separate the honor of the unseparated 
One. I separate the Natures, but I unite the bowing; (see in this Index 
under Relative Worship). Like Nestorius, he made our High Priest a 
mere man, 377, note. 

He teaches, speaking of Christ’s body, that “Cts type 15 WORSHIPPA- 
BLE” in the Eucharist, 282; that “‘the type of it IS TO BE BOWED ΤῸ,᾿ 282. 
See under Ev yapioria *n the Greek Index for his errors on the Lord’s 
Supper. 

Theodosius I., and Great; a nursing father to the Church, convokes the Second 
World Council, 6; submits nobly to Church discipline, 20. 

Theodosius II., Emperor of the East, in connection with Valentinian III., 
Emperor of the West, convokes the Third Council, xxxvi., 5, 6, 19, 503; 
his folly, 11, note 13; and unfairness, 12, note 14, and pages 15 and 16; 
4I, note 102; 58, note; his second decree, 32, 33-41, 42; its unfairness, 42- 


658 Act I. of Ephesus. 
En 


44; nobleness of Cyril and the Council in resisting it, 7bzd.; his threaten- 
ing letter to Cyril, 43, 44, 58, note, (see Valentinian III.), invites Augus-. 
tine to Ephesus, 483; his attempt to govern the decisions of the Third 
Council, and to crush Cyril and to favor Nestorius, 505, note A.; calls his. 
court ‘divine’! his letter termed ‘‘divine’’! ibid. A copyist wrongly 
calls him andthe Emperor Valentinian III., “ever August Ones,”’ or 
rather “Eternal August Ones,” page το, text, and note 20, and note B. 
on pages 505-512; the primitive Christians would not call the Emperor 
“vod,” ibid. 

Theodotus of Ancyra; 44, text, and note. See under his name in List 7. of 
Bishops, in Index I.; prefers piety to human friendship, 401, text, and 
note 711 on page 415. 

Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabassus or Cabasa; Cyril’s representative, lxxvi.;. 

see also under his name in Judex I., List I. of Bishops, and note 703, 
page 404. 

Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 385-412; his witness on the Inman 
and the Two Natures, 431-435; and notes there; see also page lxxxvii. in 
the Forematter, and under Ephesus in the Index; as Bishop of Alexandria 
he announced the date of the Pask to the East at least, page 433, note 
765; Jerome translated his Fifth Paschal Epistle, zbzd.; on miracles, note 
766, page 433; his literary remains but scanty, 514; faulted, perhaps un-- 
justly, by some for his course towards Chrysostom, 514. 

Theophylact; a passage of his in the interpolated Cyril oz Luke, 265, sub-note. 

Theosebius the Reader and Monk, with others petitions the Emperors for an 
Ecumenical Synod, xxxv. 

Three Chapters, the; IX.; (see Council, the Fifth Ecumenical); are infallibly 
condemned by the Fifth Council of the whole Christian Church, ix. 
Timotheans; held that Christ’s humanity is now of one substance with His Di- 
vinity; and worshipped it as God, and so were 7# fact, though perhaps 
not in intention, creature-worshippers, 108, note; both those errors im- 
pliedly condemned by the Third Council, 108, note; how their Man-Wor- 
ship differed from that of the Valentinian Apollinarians, 108, note See 
under Apollinarians, and Valentinian heretics, and Polemians. How 
the Timotheans differed from the Valentinians as to the worship of 
Christ’s humanity, note on pages 429-433; how from the Orthodox, zézd. ; 
their errors against the Incarnation, note 773, page 434; (see Synuszasts, 
and Dimoerites); their error as to Christ’s humanity not being of the 
Virgin’s substance, but that it came from without her, and merely passed 
through her as water does through a pipe, without taking flesh from her, 
anathematized by Gregory of Nazianzus in a passage of normal Orthodoxy 
read before the Third World Council, 440, text, and note 810. Canon I. 
of the Second Ecumenical Council mentions ‘‘ the heresy of the Apollina- 
rians,” as ‘‘to be specially anathematized,’’? neither the Valentinian. 

wing of them, nor the Timothean is excepted from that just anathema. 

Timothy Aelurus; was Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Ixviii. 


Index I1.—General Index. 659 


Titles, Byzantine, and not to be imitated; 37, text, and note οἱ; 38, text, and 
note gI. 


Titles, collective; of the Third Ecumenical Synoa, 35, text, ana nove 87; 52, 
note 140, ‘‘your Holiness,’ 58, note, “your Godworshippingness,’’ 484, 
note 1032, ‘‘ Your Blessedness,;’’? compare note 1039, page 485, ‘‘your to be 
bowed to ears,’’ folly of such language, zdzd. } 

Litles, flattering and sinful, 19, note 20; 31, note 61; 37 and 38, note οἵ; note 
B, on pages 505-512; see under 7heodosius 77}., where examples of blas- 
phemously flattering speech regarding Emperors will be found; the 
primitive Christians would not call the Emperor a god; Anathema VIII. 
of Cyril, approved at Ephesus, anathematizes every one who does so; 
Note 20, page 19, and Note B., pages 505-512; Tertullian’s testimony to 
the fact that the primitive Christians refused to term the Emperor a god; 
pages 505-508; the Emperor Augustus refused the title, notes ‘‘4” and 
“Ὁ, page 507; Martial refused it to Nerva, the Emperor, 507, note ‘‘c;” 
Roman Emperors deified after death, note ‘‘e,’? page 507; horrible lan- 
guage of the dying Emperor Vespasian, 7b7d.; ascription of blasphemous 
titles and God’s works and prerogatives to bishops of Rome, 509-5123 
Romish statements to that effect, zdid. 


Titles or expressions of humility used by Bishops; as for example, “7. 
Paralius, by God’s mercy Bishop of the Andrapans,”’ 491; “2, Gregory, 
by God’s favor Bishop of Cerasus,” ibid.; “I, Themistius, the least, Bishop 
of Jassus,’’ 492; see several more instances of the use of ‘‘¢he least’’ by 
Bishops on that page and after; and compare note 1074, page 492. 


Tradition, Apostolic; Amphilochius includes in it all the doétrines of Cyril’s 
Shorter Epistle, 132, note 205; tradition, applied to the Creed of Nicaea, 
or Cyril’s Shorter Epistle, 140, note 221; applied to the Nicene Creed, 
156, note 296; in what sense ¢vaditions is used on page 164, see 
note 339 there; includes Scripture, the Nicene Creed, the Six 
Synods, note 364, pages 170-172; definition of it by Kenrick, im- 
proved, zdid.,; includes freedom from fasting and kneeling on Lord’s 
Days, and from Pask to Pentecost, the three orders, trine immersion, and 
the Confirmation and Eucharistizing of infants; the dotrine of Ephesus 
on the Eucharist against Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, and 
against the Worship of the Host; it includes the invocation and worship 
of God alone, the prohibition of images, crosses, etc., in churches, and of 
their worship there or anywhere; it includes the use of a language in 
service which is ‘‘uxderstanded of the people,’ and the canons of the first 
four Ecumenical Councils, zd7d.; no part of the Church observes all of 
the Christian Apostolic Tradition, but all will in time, zdzd. 

Transubstantiation; condemned by Cyril and by Ephesus, xxxix., and note 
606 especially on pages 240-313; mutually destructive theories of Greeks 
and Latins as to when it occurs, 106, note; Cardinal du Perron’s Confes- 
sion on, 263, subnote ““λ.᾽ 


Treat’s Catholic Faith, xvii., note “2. 


660 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


Trent, Latin Council of, Preface, iv.; it opposes and attempts to do away the 
decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council against Creature Worship, 
image worship, relic worship, Real Presence, and Host Worship, 2dzd. 


Trine Immersion, 108, 109, note; the Second World Council admits the bap- 
tism of the Apollinarians because they retained it and the right form of 
words, and rejects that of the Eunomians because they altered both, 108, 
109; 299, note; Pope Nicholas I. held to the Eunomian heresy so far 85. 
believing the Christ-commanded form of words to be non-essential, 267d. ; 
see Baptism, and Dipping. 


Trinity, the; office work and peculiarities of each Person of It; notes 638, 639, 
640; what it is, 442, note 821; compare 7etradism. 


Turk, the; God’s curse on Christendom for its forgetfulness of the faith and the 
discipline of the Holy-Ghost-led VI. Synods, and for its creature-invok- 
ing, image worship, and Host Worship, contrary to them, 524; see under 
Arab also. 

Two Natures of Christ; Cyril of Alexandria sound on, 102, note; 214, note 543; 
271, note, andsub-note ‘‘d.’’ J. H. Newman’s testimony on and his ref- 
erences to Cyril in proof, Τότ. When Cyril professed to worship God 
the Word ‘‘ with,” or ‘‘within His flesh”? (μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ) did he 
mean that he worshipped in the Son God the Word only, or both Natures 
together? 102, 103. The view that he worshipped God the Word only 
historically considered; the arguments for it; 103-106; the argument for 
the view that he worshipped both Natures, 106; how the difference be- 
tween those two opinions affects men’s belief on the Eucharist 106, 107; 
how the partisans of different heresies worshipped Christ’s humanity; 
the Apollinarian views, that is those of the Valentinians, and those of 
the Timotheans, or Polemians, 103-106; how the Nestorians did, 106; 
more about how the Valentinians and the Timotheans did, 429-433, note; 
compare Mingling. Ambrose’s confession of the Two Natures read in 
Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council in a normal passage of Ortho- 
doxy, 437, note 794; it was brought forward and read by Cyril’s presbyter, 
Peter of Alexandria, 418, text, and was probably chosen by Cyril him- 
self, for Peter was merely his agent and under his orders; injustice done 
to Cyril in charging him with Monophysitism, 437, note 794; in another 
normal passage of Orthodoxy, read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical 
Synod to guide it, Gregory of Nazianzus confesses the two Natures, 441, 
text, and note 814 there. 

Two Fartites; their distinguishing tenet, 61, note 154; τοῦ, note; (see also 
Dimoerites); they denied to Christ’s humanity a mind; Gregory of Naz- 
ianzus and, what is greater, inspired Scripture, accord him a mind, notes 
815, 816 on page 441; compare notes 808, 809, 810. 

Tyler's excellent works against creature-worship and image-worship,; x\vii., 
note. 

Types, the Eucharistic; note on pages 278-280; 282, ¢ype, four times; etc. 


Index ITl.—General Index. 661 


ΘᾺ 


Union of Christ's Two Natures; denied by Nestorius; note 169; note 335, page 
164. Cyril sound on, 102, note; (see 7zwo Natures of Christ); the Substance 
Union, 88, note; 215, text, and note 547; 464, note 952; the different Nes- 
torian heresies against it enumerated, 214-220; Man-Worship, the out- 
come of the Nestorian denial of it rejected, 221-224; and notes 169, 171, 
and 172, on page 74; and 215, note 548, and note 641, page 318. fy pos- 
tatic, Personal and Substance Union, the same, note 169, on page 74; 163, 
note 333; 318, note 641; see Relative Conjunction, Relative Indwelling, 
and Relative Worship; and 112, note; 163, note 333. (See Nestorius). 
Cyril’s comparison to illustrate the Substance Union, 215, note 547; 
Nature Union, 218, note 562. Union by juxtaposition, 218, note 562. 
Union by Relative participation, or Relative Sharing; Relative Union; 
meaning of those expressions 218, note 563; associated with denial of the 
Inman and Man-Worship, 767d.; Pusey’s perversion of the sense of 
eelative (σχετικῆν) to favor Man-Worship, 7d7d.; see Relative Worship, 
felative Conjunétion, and Relative Indwelling, and Relative Farticipa- 
tion. On pages 221, 222, 223, Cyril and the Egyptian Council in the 
Long Letter to Nestorius, after condemning his relative worship of Christ’s 
humanity by bowing to it, and branding it as “ἃ horrible thing’? to give 
the name God toa creature, that is to Christ’s humanity, add that in “‘¢he 
[true] Union * * * nooneisco-bowed to as one with another, nor isany 
one co-called Godas one with another, but Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, 
ts understood to be [only] one, and ἐς honored with but one bow [that is 
“with but one worship’’| within His own flesh.’? Cyril here uses, as the 
context above shows, the names Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, for God the Word, 
as is his wont; see in proof the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alex- 
andria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 188, 189, 200, 201, 
and note 616, page 313 in this volume. The Timothean and Mennonite 
heresy, that Christ did not take his flesh of Mary, condemned, 436, text, 
and note 789; page 440, notes 805 and 810. Compare Gregory of 
Nazianzus and Ambrose; incautious language sometimes used on the 
Union by earlier writers which was taken advantage of by Con/users, 
notes 805, 819; corrected when the need of doing so was seen, 7d7d.; 
the Nestorian union of dignity or equality of honor, 464, note 952; and of 
mere zame, 161d. ‘The Cosubstancers mixed the natures, 282, note; see 
Apollinarians, and Cosubstancers. See also notes 183 and 606 here and 
there. 


Union, Church; the only way to it is to receive the Six Ecumenical Councils 
and to restore all Ante-Nicene dodtrine, discipline, rite, and custom, and 
to do away every thing contrary to them, x. 


Universal Bishop; a wrong title, 194, note 487. 


Uzztah, King; 20; punished for intruding into the place of the priests, 2b7d. 


662 Act I. of Ephesus. 


V. 


Valentinian Heretics; their worship of Christ’s humanity and their views on 
that humanity, 103-106; see under Afollinarians; were Man-Worship- 
pers, and were ‘‘specially anathematized’’ by the Second Council, 108; 
how their creature worship differed from that of the Timotheans, 108, 
and note on pages 429-433; how from the Orthodox, tbid.; see under 
Timotheans, and Synusiasts, and Dimoerites. 

Valentinian III., Emperor of the West, one of the convokers of the Third 
World-Council, xxxvi., 5, 19, 33-41, and 503; (see Theodosius 77., and Em- 
perors); overrides the canons of Nicaea to gratify Leo I. of Rome, xxxii., 
xxxili., 427, 428, note. 

Valentinus the Gnostic, 105, note. 

Van Osterzee; 14, note; on “husband of one wife,’’ (1. Tim. iii., 2,) 2bzd. 

Vatican Council, A. D. 1870; xliii., note; contradiéts the Sixth Ecumenical 
Synod, and the Third, 2614. 

Victor, the Archimandrite,; spurious, 1xix-lxxxi. 

Victor, Bishop of Rome, his attempt to excommunicate some Asiatic churches, 
xxxix, to xlv.; it failed, 2614. 

Vigilius, Bishop of Rome; censured by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for lack 
of duty on matters of doétrine, that is regarding the Three Chapters, xli., 
note; xlv.; was tricky, vacillating and, as his contradictions on that 
matter of faith show, he was very fallible, zjzd., and xlviii., text, and 
note “41 there; was rebuked by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for his 
wicked and undutiful course on the Three Chapters, 218, note 561. 

Vigilius of Thapsus, Cont. Eut., 105, note. 

Vincent of Lerins; on the Sentences from the Fathers quoted in Act I. of 
Ephesus, note 725, page 418; 424, note. 

Virgin Mary; those who deny the Incarnation of God the Word in her womb, 
and His birth out of her, wound respect for that bringing forth, 184. 

Vulgate, the Latin, excellent on some points, 469, note 977. 


W. 


Whitby, the Commentator; cites a canon of Laodicea against invocation of 
angels. It brands it as ‘‘hzdden idolatry,” xvii., note c. 

White garments; worn for a time after baptism, note 90, page 37. 

Whitsunday, used wrongly for Pentecost, note 90, page 36. 

Whittingham, Bp.; xii.; a learned prelate, encouraged the editor when he 
began a part of this Set, zbzd. 

Wiltsch; xxxii. 

Windbagism,; το, note; its evil results, zbzd. 

Windows, Church, idols in, xliv. 

Word, God the; see Logos and Christ; all Christ’s names belong to Him, 226, 
note 583; God the Word was crucified, 442, text, and note 825; is impassi- 
ble, 448, note 886. Compare Christ and Logos in the General Index to. 
Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 


Index 77.--- γιογαΐ Index. 6068 


Works, Theodore of Mopsuestia’s heresy as to his mere human Christ’s progress 
in, see under Union. 

Worship, that is religious service; see Man- Worship, Relative Worship, Cyril 
of Alexandria, like his teacher, the great Athanasius, God’s champion 
against creature worship, makes all acts of religious service prerogative 
to God, in accordance with Christ’s own law in Matt. iv., 10, ““7hou 
shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” See his 
remarks on that text in the Index to Scripture in this volume, and in the 
Indexes to Scripture in the Oxford translation of Cyril of Alexandria on 
the Incarnation, and in the volumes of P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek 
of Cyril’s works. See also his remarks on Luke iv., 8; on Isaiah xlii., 8, 
“Tam the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to an- 
other; neither my praise to graven images; and on the Septuagint 
Greek translation of Psalm lxxx., 9, our lxxxi, 9, “there shall be no new 
god in thee; neither shalt thou bow to a strange god.”” See on them in 
the Indexes to Scripture in the Oxford translation of his Ovations against 
the Arians, his Historical Tracts, and Later Treatises, and in the Indexes 
to the original Greek, and to Holy Scripture in this volume and in Vol- 
ume I. of Nicaea in this Set. See Relative Worshipand Holy Ghost, and 
Saints, worship of. Cyril, like his teacher Athanasius, seems to deny 
worship to Christ’s humanity, and to confine it to Divinity alone; see 
four passages quoted under Christ in this work, and how Cyril speaks in 
the note on pages 338, 339; the Romanist Kenrick teaches the error of 
the absolute worship of Christ’s humanity, a mere creature, note on pages 
337-343. Yet, afterall, in effect, he makes it relative, ibid. Cyril on page 
169, speaks of Nestorian error as “the most utter blasphemy,” and proves 
that Christ is God because He is worshipped, that is bowed to in Philip- 
pians 11., 10, 11. His predecessor, Athanasius, God’s noble Protester, 
that is Protestant, against Arian creature-worship, (Jerem. xi., 7-23), had 
used the same argument to prove that the Logos is God; see Vol. I. of 
Nicaea in this Set, pages 217-240; so Epiphanius, zd., on pages 240-247; 
compare note 949, page 463. 

Acts of Worship; most of the following are mentioned in the Scrip- 
tures. As is shown in a series of articles by the editor in the Church 
Journal of New York for 1870, every one of the following aés may be 
used in three ways, I., to God as an act of acceptable religious service; 
2., to false gods or creatures, or mere things such as images, relics, etc., as 
an act of forbidden worship; and 3., as an act of mere human love or mere 
human respect to our companions in life, in which case it is not an act of 
religious worship at all. 

Acts of Worship; 1, Bowing, the most common of all acts of worship 
and commonly used by Cyril for them all. See his prohibition of co- 
bowing to Christ’s mere humanity with God the Word; it is in his An- 
athema VIII. on pages 331, 332; and under Christ in this Index, and in 
notes 183, and 679; see especially the note on pages 81, 82, 83, 84, 
85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, etc., where Nestorius argues for co-bowing 


664 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


to Christ’s humanity and God the Word, he wxzting the bowing, as he 
writes in the note on pages 86, 87; and see St. Cyril’s refutation of 
his Man-Worship, that is Creature-Worship in the contexts of all those 
pages. ‘‘ Two worships’? condemned by the Fifth Synod, 352, note; the 
“two worships” here referred to are one, absolute to God the Word, and 
another relative or absolute to His mere humanity, relative according to 
Nestorius, 82-90, note, and his Blasphemy 8, page 461, text, and note 9493. 
see also the rest of those blasphemies for other allusions on that topic. 

Those references are tabulated in note F., pages 529-551. Nestorius, 

however, professed to unite the bowing (τὴν προσκύνησιν) 86, 87, note; an ex- 
cuse and evasion which Cyril there refutes, 86-90. Nestorius by one act. 
of bowing would express two different intentions, one to worship, by that 
bow, absolutely God the Word, and to worship also by that same one bow, 

relatively, the Man put on, a mere creature, so that the same act meant 
God-Worship, and contrary to Matt. iv., 10, creature-worship. That 
Nestorian error iscondemned by Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical 

Council, 109-112, note. 

Under this Head I. of Worship by Bowing comes the crime of bowing 
to the Communion Table and to the altar, 467, note 966; every one guilty 
of it is by necessary implication anathematized by the Third Ecumenical 
Council in Cyril’s Anathema VIII., which it approved with the whole 
Epistle of which it forms part; and it is impliedly anathematized by the 
Fifth Ecumenical Council also in its Anathema IX., and in its condem- 
nation of the Nestorian relative worship of Christ’s humanity as “a 
crime,’ tbid., and under Bowing in this Index and in the General Index 
to Vol. I. of Nicaea; andin this Index under Creature Worship, and 
Christ, and Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2,and 5, and Man-Wor- 
ship, especially page 634, Head II. (i). 

2. Co-glorifying a mere creature, Christ’s humanity, with God the 
Word. ‘This is forbidden under pain of anathema by the whole Church 
in Anathema VIII. of Cyril, which, with the whole Epistle in which it 
stands, was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Theodoret pro- 
fesses to co-glorify Christ’s humanity with God the Word, 116, note; 341, 
note, and the references there. So does Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, 
Theodoret’s fellow Nestorian, 117, note, and 341, note. Compare, on the 
Nestorian Man-Worship and Cyril’s opposition to it, the words of 
Eutherius of Tyana, or his fellow heretic Theodoret, on pages 125-127, 
note. See notes 952 and 954, on page 464, and note 963, page 466. 

3. Co-calling a mere creature, Christ’s humanity, GoD with God the 
Word. This is anathematized by the Universal Church, East and West, 
in St. Cyril’s Anathema VIII., 506. See to the same effect the Nestorian 
plea for applying the name God to his mere humanity, and Cyril’s reply 
to it again and again, as for example in the note on pages 118, 119. See 
also note 952, page 464. Tertullian witnesses that the primitive Chris- 
tians would not call a creature, the Roman Emperor a god, 505-508, text. 
and notes; see also De/fication in this Index. 


Index IT.—General Index. 665 


4. Kneeling, given as an act of religious worship to Saints, or to 
mere things, such as altars, Communion Tables, relics, etc. See under 
Kneeling in this Index and in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, 
and under Worship in that, and page 467, note 966 in this volume. 

5. Prostration. Seealso under Prostration, Bowing, and Worship, 
and Creature-Service in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, and under Creature- 
Worship and Man-Worship and Bowing in this. 

6. Prayer; see under Prayer to Creatures and [nvocation of Saints 
and Creature-Service in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, to 
receive prayer being prerogative to God, and to pray belonging to man, 
Christ, as Cyril teaches, prays as man, and as God is prayed to, 70, note. 
See in this Index under Cveature-Worship, and under Prayer to Crea- 
tures and Invocation and Christ. 

7. Offering incense. This act of worship is given in the Greek 
Church and in the Roman to images, altars, communion tables, etc., 
and in the Greek Church as an act of mere human respect, not worship, 
it is given to the people present, for the censer is swung towards them. 
See in the General Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea under Jucensing, Creature- 
Service, and in this volume under Jucense, Creature-Worship, etc. An 
instance of the Romish idolatry of worshipping by incense the Host is 
found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, 110. ii., cap. xxxiii., section 
19, end, where Roman prelates are commanded by it to “thrice incense 
the most holy Sacrament.’? Amphilochius implies that incense is prerog- 
ative to God, note 870, page 448. But Cyril and Ephesus teach that 
God’s substance is not there; see Zucharist. 

8. Kissing, as for example a cross, or an image, painted or graven, 
or relics, communion tables, altars, the Bible or any part of it, or any- 
thing else, as among the Greeks, the Latins, the Nestorians, the Mono- 
physites, and as among the Israelites and the calves at Bethel and Dan, 
through whom they worshipped Jehovah, and as among the Moham- 
medans, in kissing the black stone of the Caaba at Mecca, which is a 
relic of the former Arab paganism, etc, Every sincere Christian should 
always refuse to kiss any Bible in taking an oath in court or elsewhere, 
for it is a forbidden relic of the worship of the Gospels and of the Bible 
in the Middle Ages, and is undoubtedly one of the many forms of idol- 
atry. It is really unnecessary, and the oath is perfect without it; for it 
consists in calling God to witness that you will tell the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, and that if you do not you imprecate damnation 
on yourself, 467, note 966. See Kzssing images in the General Index to 
Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 

9. Kissing the hand to; as in Job xxxi., 26,27. Saluting images of 
Washington, Lincoln, etc., or the colors of a regiment is pagan and 
should be shunned. Salutation of created things and created persons is 
not confined to kissing the hand tothem. Itmay be of many kinds. A 
very common Romish and Greek and Monophysite and Nestorian kind 
is salutation to the Virgin Mary, a mere creature, in the use of the ex- 


666 


Act ὦ, of Ephesus. 


pression Hail Mary, etc., which is manifest paganism. The Latins on 
their rosaries say ten prayers to her where they do one to God!!! 

10. Offering sacrifice, as for example, in the Old Testament, Mosaic 
carnal sacrifices, and in the New, Christian spiritual sacrifices, as for in- 
stance in I. Peter ii., 5,9. Believers in Transubstantiation and in Con- 
substantiation Judaize and Heathenize by changing the unbloody and 
spiritual sacrifices acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ (I. Peter ii., 
5, 9) to a bloody and carnal ordinance, that is, one of real blood and of 
real flesh, even the real flesh and the real blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
They forget that the Christian spzvitual sacrifices are superior to those of 
Moses’ Law, precisely because they are spiritual; for the spiritual is by 
its very nature vastly higher than the fleshly offering; see on this whole 
matter note 599, pages 229-238. 

I would add that as our word worship is a shortening for worthship, 
and that as any and every act by which in religion men honor God 
or a thing is an act of religious worship ve/ative or absolute to God, or to 
that thing, and as the expression cu/tus in Latin means a cultivation of 
anything, as land, for instance, and so comes to mean Zo cultivate or care 
for God or acreature or a thing by any religious act; we can at once see 
that the possible a&ts of religious worship approved or condemned are 
very many. The Reformers, for instance, in the Third Part of the Hom- 
ily against Peril of Idolatry, speak of capping before an image, that is, 
removing the cap before it as an act of worship to it, (page 239 of the 
Christian Knowledge Society’s edition of the HYomlies, A. D. 1864). 
Many more such acts might be mentioned, indeed, enough to very 
largely increase this list. All worship of created or made things forbid- 
den by Cyril and by the Church, 331, note 677. 


Worship of the Consecrated Symbols in the Lord’s Supper; note on pages 278, 


280, 282, 285-287, and note 606 passim. 


Worship of Christ’s humanity in Heaven; 281, note, and note 606 passim, in 


the Lord’s Supper, see Hucharist. 


Zoega; on Senuti the Monophysite, 1 xii.-lxix. 
Zosimus, Pope; attempts to get the power of Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa, 


but his attempt is resisted by the Africans and fails, xxxiii. 


ΤΙ >. iN SB 


INDEX TO TEXTS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 


EXPLANATION. 


Where pages are referred to, the Roman letters refer to the 
Forematter, the Arabic numbers to the body of the work. 

The works of Cyril are especially rich in Scripture quotations 
against the Nestorian denial of the Inman, and against their worship 
of a mere Man, Christ’s mere separate humanity, and for the doc- 
trine that God alone is to be worshipped, and against ail relative 
worship, which is merely heathenism, and for his own anti-real-pres- 
ence, but spiritually profiting doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Some 
of the references below are in his writings. More may be found in 
his full works. When a passage of Holy Writ is found in an 
Ecumenically approved sense in any document emanating from a 
Council of the whole Church, that sense is fixed forever and it is 
heresy to contradict it. Among texts so explained, for instance, is 
Matt. xviii., 6, where Christ speaks of the sin of ‘‘ causing even one 
only of the little ones who believe in Christ to stumble,’ which St. Cyril 
applies to Nestorius because he brought in the errors of denying the 
Incarnation, the worship by bowing, etc., of a mere creature, 
Christ’s humanity, (ἀνθρωπολατρεία, as St. Cyril terms it), and what St. 
Cyril calls Cannzbalism ( ἀνθρωποφαγία ) on the Eucharist; so he ap- 
plies iton page 60, above, in his Shorter Epistle, which was approved 
at Ephesus. Of course his explanation smites all who deny the In- 
man, all who worship any creature, be it the Virgin Mary, or other 
saints, or angels or archangels or any other creature, and all who 
profess to eat in the Eucharist the real human flesh of Christ and to 
drink His real human blood as do all Greeks, Latins, and all sorts of 
Consubstantiationists, who profess to hold to the real presence of 
His actual flesh and blood in that rite; (on the attempt made by 


668 Ad 7. of Ephesus. 


Real Presencers to evade the charge of Cannibalism by saying, in 
effect, that they eat mere Docetic flesh and drink mere Docetic blood 
see page 613 in this volume). 

Further on in the same Epistle, Cyril, with reference to 11. Cor- 
inthians, xiii., 5, teaches that those errors are outside of and contrary 
tu ‘‘ the faith’? mentioned in that verse; see page 60, above. 

Then on pages 61 and after Cyril goes on to teach that the ex- 
pression ‘‘.Son of Man’’ which we find in Matthew xvi., 13, and 
elsewhere in the New Testament, must be taken to mean, not a mere 
separate man, a mere creature as the Nestorians held, but God the 
Word with His humanity, two Natures, not one. To God the Word 
indeed that title is Economically Appropriated as are all the things 
of His humanity; see on that the subnote on page 291 in this volume. 
So Cyril teaches again on pages 85-98. On pages 77 and 78 he 
shows that Hebrews ii., 9, teaches that Christ’s own body “‘dy the 
grace of God tasted death for every man,’’ and that that suffering is 
Economically Appropriated to God the Word. 

On pages 97-112, Cyril explains that John i., 14, “ Zhe Word 
was made flesh,’ means the doctrine of the Inflesh of God the Word 
in Mary’s womb and His birth out of her; and hence holds that it 
teaches that she was the ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God;’’ and against the 
Apollinarians he holds that Christ’s ‘‘ body was produced out of her, 
and gifted with a rational soul,’’ and that God the Word was united 
to that body, and hence He is said ‘‘¢o have been born according to 
the flesh.”’ 

The denial of Man-Worship on pages 79-85 in this Epistle and 
on pages 221-224 inclusive in Cyril’s Longer Epistle points to Mat- 
thew iv., 10; Luke iv., 8; Isaiah xlii., 8, and the Septuagint of Psalm 
Ixxx., 9, our Psalm 1xxxi., 9, which Cyril so often refers to elsewhere 
as against Nestorius’ worship of Christ’s separate humanity, a mere 
creature; see especially the part of note 183 which is on pages 94, 95 
and 96, and indeed that whole note, and the Index to Scripture in 
this volume and in that to Volume I. of Vicaeain this Set. Compare 
notes 676, 677, 678, 679 and 680. 

Nestorius in his Ecumenically condemned Epistle to Cyril on 
pages 155-166, in reply to Cyril’s Shorter one to him, quotes differ- 
ent texts of Holy Writ against the Incarnation and against the doc- 
trine of Economic Appropriation, and his sense of them is condemned | 


Index Ill. Index of Scripture Texts. 669 


with that Epistleby Ephesus. See them there. So is his perversion 
on page 162 above of Christ’s words in I. Corinthians xi., 24, Matt. 
XXVi., 26-29, Mark xiv., 22-25, and Luke xxii., 19, 20, the sense of 
part of which, and to some extent the exact words of which, he 
quotes as follows: 

‘“« This 15 my body which ts broken for you for the remission of sins,”’ 
to make it teach the real presence, not indeed, of Christ’s Divinity 
but of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist after consecration (note 
on pages 279-282), and the Cannibalism of eating His human flesh 
there and drinking his real blood there (note on pages 279-286 and 
the context), and his doctrine that a mere Man, that is a mere crea- 
ture, has redeemed us, the Nestorian result of whichis, as Cyrilshows, 
the worship of that mere creature (see Cyril’s Anathema X, on pages 
339-346, text; and note 688 on pages 363-406); indeed we find his 
chief champion, Theodoret of Cyrus, teaching not only the real pres- 
ence of Christ’s humanity in the Lord’s Supper, but its worship there, 
and then its manducation there, which, of course, are rightly branded 
by Cyril as the Worship of a Man (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), and the eating of 
a Man (ἀνθρωποφαγία). In other words, as Cyril teaches, the Nestor- 
ians made Christ’s separate humanity, a mere creature, a god by giv. 
ing it acts of worship, that is, by bowing to it, and invoking it; for 
Cyril, like Athanasius, held that every act of religious worship is pre- 
rogative to God alone; (see pages 237-240 of Volume I. of Vzcaea in 
this Set, and compare the language on such themes of St. Athana- 
sius, St. Epiphanius, Lucifer of Cagliari, Faustin of Rome and St. 
Chromatius on pages 217-253, of that volume); and then the Nestor- 
ians actually claimed to eat the flesh and to drink the blood of that 
creature whom they had just made a god!!! Could any thing be 
more absurd and unworthy of the sensible religion of Christ? Well 
therefore did the whole Church at Ephesus, following Cyril’s teach- 
ing, condemn both Nestorius and Theodoret and depose them both. 

We turn now toa third document, which was approved by the 
Third Ecumenical Synod, as was also Cyril’s sense of certain texts 
in it; that is to his Longer Epistle to Nestorius. It is on pages 206- 
358, text. 

Cyril commences by applying well Matthew x., 37, Matthew x., 
34, 35, and Heb. xi., 35, to his duty to contend for the faith against 
the errors of Nestorius (pages 207-209, text); and these texts may be 


ὍΤΟ Act I. of Ephesus. 


justly urged for the duty of opposing such errors in St. Thomas 
Cranmer’s day, and in St. Nicholas Ridley’s day, and in St. Hugh 
Latimer’s, and in our day; for denial of the Inman, Creature-Wor- 
ship, and Relative Worship, and Host Worship, all existed in the 
XVIth. Century; denial of the Incarnation among some of the Ana- 
baptists, and among all the Socinians, and the other three errors 
among the Romanists, and the Greeks, and the Nestorians, and the 
Monophysites; and all four errors exist still. And eyery Bishop, 
Presbyter, Deacon, or lower cleric, or laic, who is remiss in his duty 
to oppose, and,so faras hemay, crush thoseidolatries, and to maintain 
God’s truth, should be reproved by those texts and incited by them 
irresistibly to action for God and His Church as St. Cyril was; for, 
as Christ in those passages teaches, He sends the sword of His truth 
on this earth, and there is ever an irreconcilable quarrel between it 
and error, and he who forsakes not all for Him is not worthy of 
Him. We must be ready to die for His truth. 

On page 214 Cyril asserts against the Apollinarians that the 
Divinity of Christ even in the Incarnation ‘‘ ever vemains, according 
to the Scriptures, unchangeable and entirely inconvertible,’’ where 
there is clearly a reference to many texts of Scripture which teach 
that doctrine, though he does not specify any of them. The reader, 
however, who has a Concordance can do that for himself. Then he 
explains John iii., 34, to refer to the fact that God the Word’s hu- 
manity was anointed by the Spirit at His Incarnation, and that that 
anointing consisted in pouring out the Holy Ghost on His humanity, 
and that ‘‘ zot by measure’’ (John iii., 34). 

On page 217, the statement in Colossians ii., 9, that in Christ’s 
humanity ‘‘dwelleth all the fulness of the Divinity bodily’ is inter- 
preted to mean the actual Inflesh of God the Word’s Substance in it. 

On pages 218, 219, I Corinthians vi., 17, is used by the Nestor- 
ians to teach, against the Incarnation, that Christ had no in- 
dwelling of God the Word’s Substance but only the influences of 
His Holy Spirit as we have, but Cyril shows that the Logos Him- 
self by His Eternal Substance indwells His humanity. 

On page 220, Cyril teaches that Christ’s words in John xx., 17, 
““My God,’’ and ‘‘My Father,’’ were uttered as man, though, so far 
as His Divinity is concerned, He is ‘‘God by Nature, and out of 
the Father's Substance.’’ Onthat I have referred to Matt. xxvii., 46, 


Index Ill. Index of Scripture Texts. ' 671 


in note 574 on page 220, in this volume. Ishould also have referred 
toJohn xx., 17, because itis fuller on that matter, for it has not only 
the expression ‘‘ JZy God’’ but also ‘‘ My Father.’ So also, on the. 
same page, Philippians ii., 7, and Galatians iv., 4, are explained to. 
refer to the Word’s humbling Himself to take our humanity upon 
Him and to submit as Man to the conditions and results of that hu- 
miliation for our salvation. ‘That explanation accords, of course, 
with Cyril’s doctrine of the Inman, not with Nestorius’ denial of it. 

Then follows on pages 221-223, as in the Shorter Epistle of Cyril 
above a disownment of the Nestorian worship of Christ’s mere human- 
ity, where we see an implied reference to such texts of Scripture, so. 
often quoted by Cyril on that theme, as Psalm lxxx., 9, Septuagint, 
which is Psalm 1xxxi., 9, in the King James version; Isaiah xlii., 8, 
and Matt. iv., 10. See pages 94-96 0n those texts, note, and indeed the. 
whole of that note 183, pages 79-128, and in this Index and in the 
Lndex to Texts of Holy Scripture in Vol. I. of Nicaea under Isaiah 
xlii., 8, and Matt. iv., 10, and under Creature Service, Humanity of 
Christ, Invocation of Saints, Man Worship, Christ, Relative Worship, 
etc., in the General Index to that volume, and under similar articles. 
in the General Index to this. 

Next Cyril explains on pages 224-230 certain texts of the Incar- 
nation and the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation to God the 
Word of the things of His humanity; they are I. Peter iv., 1; Heb. ii., 
Byetwice; Col.)4.,'18; 1. Cor xv., 2091. Corxv. 21, and Acts xvii. 
31. On page 226 John xi., 25, is referred to and applied to the Logos. 

On pages 232-240, Cyril explains the words ¢elling on the death 
in I. Corinthians xi., 26, and the words in John vi., 53, ‘‘ Verily, 
verily, [ say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and 
drink F{1s blood, ye have no {776 171 you.’’ Atthe start we must remem- 
ber that Cyril and his Synod of the Egyptian Diocese are opposing 
in this Epistle Nestorius’ heresies, among them, that on the Eu- 
charist which was afterwards brought before the Council in his Blas- 
phemy 18 and condemned asa Blasphemy and made one of the grounds 
for his deposition. In that Blasphemy 18 Nestorius quotes part of 
the same Eucharistic passage of Christ, John vi., 56, 57, and infers 
thence that we do not eat Christ’s Divinity, but only his flesh, which, 
of course, would be Cannibalism. Cyril, as we seein note 606 above, 
denies, first, that we eat Christ’s Divinity, and, so far, agrees with 


672 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Nestorius; but, secondly, he denies that we eat His flesh and blood, 
and brands the doing so by Nestorius as Cannibalism; see pages 250- 
276. So here Cyril explains a part of the same passage, that is John 
vi., 53, (and, in effect, the whole of John vi., 25-71, for it is allofa 
piece on the Eucharist), tomean that the rite is az ‘‘ unbloody sacrifice,’’ 
a‘‘sacrifice without blood’ (pages 235, 236), and that ‘‘ We donot receive 
22 as common flesh. God forbid! Nor moreover do we receive it as the 
flesh ofa man * * * butas * * * a peculiar flesh of the Word 
Flimself * * * so thateven though Hesaystous, Verily, verily, 
7 say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink Fits 
blood, we do not reckon it to be the flesh of a man like one of us, for 
how will the flesh of a man be life-producing by itsown nature? But 
we consider it as having become truly a peculiar flesh of Him who for 
us has both become and is called the Son of Man,’’ 238-240. 

Here is then zo blood, and no flesh of Christ’s humanity; for all 
admit that His flesh was ‘‘ the flesh of a man like one of us,’ for it was 
of David and out of Mary, and not Docetic nor Co-substance flesh. 
Cyril therefore here proclaims such an explanation of the Eucharistic 
teachings of Christ in John vi., as makes it in effect to necessarily 
assert the doctrine of the real absence of the Substance of Christ’s 
Divinity from the rite, and the real absence of the substance of His 
human flesh and blood from the rite; and as the Substance of Christ’s 
Divinity is not present there, according to the view of Cyril as ap- 
proved by Ephesus there is nothing to worship there. This last 
point is shown more fully in the note on pages 276-313 above. So 
as there is no flesh or blood of Christ’s humanity in the rite, there is 
no possibility of eating His human flesh there, Cannibalism (ἀνθρω- 
zogayta) Cyril calls it, nor of drinking His human blood there. Hence 
Nestorius’ Cannibalism is a false and lying tenet as well as a disgust- 
ing one. See pages 260-313 above, note. On pages 260-276 St. 
Cyril tells us how we eat the ‘‘ peculiar flesh of the Word’’ (page 
239). 

To sum up, he explains John vi., 53, and the context in such a 
sense as to forbid all Real Presence views, be they Transubstantia- 
tion or Consubstantiation, and all cannibal errors and all Host-wor- 
shipping idolatry; that is he teaches the Real Absence view and 
the Universal Church at Ephesus approved him. Yet he makes the 
rite spiritually profitable, and unless he differed from the whole church 


L[ndex ΜΖ. Index of Scripture Texts. 673 


in his day (and there is not the slightest trace of that) he deemed the 
rite necessary to salvation, and that in the case of infants as well as 
of adults and all. All this shows of course, that Cyril held that the 
Eucharist is not a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary but only a 
saving remembrance and memorial of Christ’s death and a spiritual 
sacrifice, not a carnal one (Luke xxii., 19; I. Cor. xi., 24, 25; Heb. 
ix., 25-28 inclusive, and Heb. x., 11-15). 


Further on, on pages 241-255, Cyril in teaching that we must 
‘“not distribute the expressions used of our Saviour in the Gospels’’ be- 
tween two Persons, shows that the words “‘in John xiv., 9, Hé that 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’’ and those inJohn x., 30, ‘‘ Zand 
the Father are one’’ refer to Christ’s Dzvinity naturally-as do also 
other words there mentioned from II. Cor. iv., 4; Col. i., 15, and 
Heb. i., 3; whereas the words in John viii., 40, ‘‘ But now ye seek to 
kill me, a man who hath told you the truth,’? mean His humanity 
which alone can be killed, as do also all those which befit his making 
Himself of no reputation (Philip. ii., 7), but all the things of Christ’s 
humanity must be Economically Appropriated to God the Word only, 
or, as Cyril words it, on page 254, ‘‘ Therefore all the expressions in 
the Gospels are to be ascribed to [but] one Person, to [but] one in- 
fleshed Subsistence of the Word.”’ 


Next Cyril on pages 255-267, teaches that the words in Heb. 
iii., 1., ‘‘ Apostle and High Priest of our profession’? mean God the 
Word, Who, however, does the human things by his humanity; andon 
pages 256, 257, he applies to God the Word alone the expression .So/e- 
Born Son, ΥἹὸν Movoyevq, which occurs in the New Testament again and 
again, as for instance in Johni., 14, 18; John iii., 16, 18; Heb. xi., 
17, and I. Johniv., 9. For He alone was born out of the Father’s 
Substance. 


Below, pages 259-262, in the same Epistle, Cyril explains Heb. 
x., 5-8 of God the Word’s offering “2715 own body’’ for us, so that we 
are redeemed by God the Word, and not by a mere creature as Nes- 
torius held; and directly he explains Rom. iii., 23, to teach that ‘‘a//”’ 
human beings except Christ’s humanity “‘have sinned and come short 
of the glory of God,’ (pages 261-267). Sohe teaches again in his 
Anathema X. on pages 339-346. 


674 Act I. of Ephesus. 


On pages 268-285, Cyril explains at length John xvi., 14, ‘‘He 
shall glorify Me,’ and “‘ He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto 
you (john xvi., τᾶ): 

On pages 290, 291, he quotes and then explains Johni., 1, 2, 3, 
14, and Heb. i., 2, as referring to God the Word who became Incar- 
nate, and next he mentions some texts to show the blessed results of 
Christ’s Incarnation, and Christ’s benediction on marriage at Cana 
in Galilee. In the XII. Anathemas which follow, that is in Anath- 
emas V. and VI., ‘‘ Zhe Word was made flesh’’ of John 1., 14, is ex- 
plained of the Incarnation andthe Two Natures. And in Anathema 
ΧΙ 1. Peter iv:, 1, 1. Cor: ii., 8, Heb. 11:, 9, (ΟἹ. τ te amen 
i., 5, are more or less distin¢tly referred to for the Incarnation and 
the doctrine of Economic Appropriation as also are the words or 
sense of John xiv., 6, John v., 17-30, and vi., 33-64, and John 1., 1-5. 

And, to anticipate a littie, what is pertinent here, as it seems to. 
show St. Cyril’s mind more fully; his Epistle to John of Antioch, 
which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, uses Isaiah 
vil., 14, Matt. 1. 23, Lukei., 30, 31, and Matt. 1., 21, and "emia 
them as referring to the Incarnation and as proof texts for it. So it 
uses for the same tenet I. Cor. xv., 47, John iii., 13, Philippians i1., 7, 
James i.. 17, I. Peteriv., 1, and Isaiah 1., 6, which are cited to prove 
in Christ, in effect, two unchanged Natures, and the dod¢trine of 
Economic Appropriation. 

In the same Epistle, further on, Cyril uses language, which 
shows that he held the Holy Ghost to be consubstantial with the 
Logos, and which seems naturally to imply that he held to the doc- 
trine that the Holy Spirit goes out of the Father alone. For he 
writes: 

‘‘ For it was not they themselves that spoke, but the Spirit of 
the God and Father; Which goeth out indeed of Him but is not alien 
from the Son, so far I mean as Its Substance is concerned’’ (οὐ yap 
ἦσαν αὐτοὶ of λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα tod Θεοῦ χαὶ llatpés ὃ ἐχπορεύεται: 


μὲν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἔστι δὲ οὐχ ἀλλότριον τοῦ Yiod χατά γε τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον). 
Celestine’s Epistle to Nestorius, which is on pages 179-203, is not. 
so rich in explanation of the dogmatic points involved as Cyril's. 
Yet it applies Galatians i., 8, 9, to him as preaching an alien Gos- 
pel, quotes I. Cor. v., 13, to enforce the duty of removing an evil 


man from the flock, cites I. Cor. xi1., 19, and applies it to him as the: 


Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. 675 


author of ““ heresies,’’ and applies I. Timothy vi., 20, 21, to: him as 
the author of ‘‘profane znnovations,’’and Jeremiah v., 30, 31, Septu- 
agint, as prophesying “‘ unrighteousness,’ and Matt. XXV.,15, 18, 24- 
31, as not having kept entire the deposit entrusted to him by God, 
and mentions John xvii., 12, as against him for having so split the 
the Church as he had, and warns him according to Rev. xxii., 18, 
19, against adding to or taking away, and applies to his teachings the 
language of Titus iii., 9, ‘‘ uzprofitable and vain,’’ and in the Jan- 
guage of different texts proclaims him a poisoner and a scatterer of 
God’s flock, a ravener, a grievous wolf, ‘‘ not sparing the flock,’ and 
as ‘‘ speaking berverse things to draw away disciples after’ him: quotes 
texts which speak of the duty of opposing him and urges them against 
him, and mentions, as do Cyril and his Synod, Christ’s words that 
‘‘ neither father, nor mother, nor children, nor any kindred ought to be 
preferred to Flim,”’ and applies to Nestorius Christ’s words, “ Physt- 
cian heal thyself’? (Luke iv.. 23). See the other texts alluded to in 
that Epistle. 

Celestine speaks as the Bisnop of the first see of the Church, 
which, however, had no canonical jurisdiction outside of Italy, whose 
attempt to gain Appellate Jurisdiction in Latin Africa, as we show 
in another volume of this series, was resisted by Carthage and by all 
the Council of Bishops subject to it, and was condemned in general 
but plainly applicable‘terms in Canon VIII. of Ephesus. 

The Letter of Capreolus of Carthage, (on pages 481-486), quotes 
no text of Holy Writ definitely and is therefore here dismissed, 

The Passages from the Fathers on pages 418-449, contain im- 
portant quotations of Scripture. So do those from Nestorius on 
pages 449-480. See them on all topics connected with the Nes- 
torian Controversy. The Orthodox Fathers’ explanations are re- 
ceived; those of Nestorius are condemned. ‘The doctrinal bearings: 
of particular texts are explained in the notes, which see. It would 
be too long to remention them here. We have done so in the case 
of the Epistles aforesaid. ‘That may serve as a sample of the way in 
which the earnest scholar should examine Cyril’s sense of Scrip- 
ture texts. For on the great themes of the Inman, Economic 
Appropriation, Man-Worship, and Cannibalism in the Eucharist, 
Cyril's dodtrine, as set forth in his two Epistles, is approved by 
the Third Ecumenical Synod. 


676 Act 1. of Ephesus. 


OLD TESTAMENT. 


‘GENESIS. 


[ao Sa ly, ποῖ 

τ Pts se 6 55. eee 319, note 
{ΠῚ ΠΟ ==, -- 319, note 
ΤΣ δι... xlvii., top note 
XXXII., 24-32 ---77, note; 78, note 
ΠΣ TT, went. το 278, note 


EXODUS. 


OY ae τπὸ- 459, note 938 

VII., 1--261, subnote; 459, note 
937. 

XII., 3-5, and 47, 48 -- 240, note 

XII., 11, 27----note 89, page 36 


a ae ee 39, note; 196, note 
Pe he τ: 72, note 
cS MP ty AS Bee ee 221, note 
ΓΙ ἀπ’ note 89, page 36 
BON, MED 9 eS eee - 378, note 
2." OR Ὁ xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 
Od ie oe - _-378, note 
AIX, 5-——--——--—_-_-- 373, note 
Bo Sat το.  - πο 315, note 
τι ee xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 


XXXII., the whole chapter ---2I10, 
note; 249, subnote; 516 


BD DS NARS Pe: Eee en ae 249, subnote 
See Wie π τ. 0: -ὄ 249, subnote 
ΣΟΙ πᾶς τ. xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 
Pe Τὸ, Τ᾽ “Ὁ... 210, note 
ΣΟ ΚΓ Os 77, note; 78, note 


XXXIIL., 23; 78, line 11 of the note 
matter towards the top 


of the page, where 
““Gen.’’ should be 
‘ETO 

MOR SCIY «.) ¥=20 332 ςῈ xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 


SAEXIV., 142-325-252 eee 72, note 

SK LY, 25, 292225 xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 

AMX VE 35 eee xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 

LEVITICUS. 

XVI., 17, and the whole chapter 
====315)) eae: 

SKI, [h-- οὐ κα 249, note 

OA eee note 89, page 36 

NUMBERS. 

IW.) 1- -Ξ - ὸ τ 459, note 938 

WV. 3253-23 249, subnote 

ΙΣ.,6.:5:.----.- 249, subnote 

XVI., the clapter---— 40, note 

LX... L1-222—- oo 249, subnote 

ΧΧ.,12-:--. τυ eee 516 

SOX VIM. τὲ -- 8 note 89, page 36 

XXXI., 19-----—.-__-249, subsote 

SXAML., .33-- Ὁ ὕΨ note 89, page 36 
DEUTERONOMY. 

I., 37 -------- ----------- 516 

ΠΙ., 26. τ ΞΘ ee 516 

IV, 22225-52222 184, note 

IV: 13--.-- 8 55 xlvi, note ‘‘a’’ 

VI., 4, 5, 13 --------- 334, note 

VI... 15---3— ee 72, note 

IX., 9, 11, 15-- πῖνι- HOLE ae 

[X., 205. ἘΞ 22 516 

Xx.) I-Gt - Ὁ xlvi., note ‘‘a’”’ 

At. . 29---5 eee 321, note 

ΧΙ 3 325-39 note 89, page 36 

XI, 32---3 4. 184, note 

ΧΙΠῚ., 8---:-- eee Igo, note 

XVI., 16-...-22 eee Ioo, note 


XXVIII., 15-68 inclusive__321, note 


Index ITI. Index of Scripture Texts. 


ΠΧ 7-26) ee τ ν- 210, note 
XXXII., 20, Sept. ----375, subnote 
moo 2t and after... 221, note 
oS 4) UEC “Ὁ. τὸ 375, note 
MMI, 43, Sept.._---_-- 378, note 
XXXII., 49-52 

XXXIV., 5, 6 


JOSHUA. 
XXII, 7 ποία 89. page 36 
JUDGES. 

00s note 89, page 36 

NA 7 ὕ...... ὕὅ 78, note 
220 UIA (Sue Cae 78, note 
ΘΠ UNS: 2 ee ae ae εὅἰ 78, note 

I. SAMUEL. 

Pi. 27-36 -2------- 3+ 59, note 
ΤΠ PETS) - sa 59, note 
WV. ΤΙΞ2 ΕΞ, τὰ τ. 59, note 

ΟΝ espa  -- --- 190, note 
ἈΝΕ G., τὸ:--.-. " 450, note 939 
II. SAMUEL. 
L1G ταν ee ers 165, note 
I. KINGS. 
ΠΡ 3θ.. “--τΞ..τ 0 59, note 
ΜΠ ΠΟΥ πο ae xlvi., note “ἃ 
Wht 21 - == 52 xlvi., note ‘‘a’’ 
WILL 309-2. =.- 2367 note 
ΣΧ ΤΟΣ 2.5: ee a 516 
XII., 25.to I. Kings xiii., 6; 
210, note. 
ΚΓ ΞΕ τ Sets 249, subnote 
XIV., I-31 inclusive -_-210, note 
2.5) NRG (PS a aE τι 406, note 
ΠΟ Wyte 1.9 ἐκ 77, note 
55) AEN 526. 50 σὺ Ὁ Ὁ 59, note 
II. KINGS. 
ἈΠ Ι΄ τ NE 249, subnote 


XVII., 1-41 inclusive_---210, note 
ἈΠ’. 1-922 5252-225 249, subnote 


OO τ  ὌπἩπἩ τ ῦῖο““΄ “΄“΄ΠΠπΠΤἕΠΤἃἝὮτἷἝἷἝἿἷἝἷἝἷΠἷΠπςπΠΠΠπττ-Γ0Γ ὺ΄Γ΄ἷἕἕ“ἷ[ο.-.-.-..--ς-ς- τ ὃὖὃϑΘ τ ΠΠ πλ͵ΤΘΦΘΦΘΦΘΦΘΦΘΦΘῸΘῸΘῸΘῸΘῸΘῸΘῸΦῸΦὋῬὋἝὋἝὋὁἑ''Ἑ'Ἑ'ὋὋ 


677 


XVIII., 4, and the context ~-_249, 
subnote. 

XT andl ROT ae shah ee xii 

DTT geo res scree 249, subnote 


XXITI., 15-21 


[:-<CHRONICLES: 
ΧΟ GS 2h ey ee 367, note 


II. CHRONICLES. 
VI., 30; 367, note; 384, subnote 


66 72: Ὁ 
ON I eek 2 28 ee ee 524 
DS Nel ee ere SLE 249, subnote 

NEHEMIAH 

TO TS SA ed ee 210, note 

JOB. 
ΧΟ ΧΊΤΙ 21 225: 5 τὸ 38, note 91 
DDD. OL 0 0 AY, ae ened bene 340, note 

PSALMS. 

WIL; G25 τ Ὁ 384, subnote 
Me, free te ee 221; note 
ΧΙ. Ae note 89, page 36 
OSE, Ξε το eS 317, note 
ΧΟ ΧΟ δὲ: - ιν Be 388, note 
RIV 4. 2022 ts See 384, note 
ΤΡ 1§-------=+-2 2334, subnote 
ἘΣ S| Sept) ee 89, note 
ΤΟ 2ΞΞΞ τ τὺ 221, note 
ΠΧ ΤΕ os heen Ae ce 210, note 


LXXX., 9, Sept.--L XXXI., 9, Eng- 
lish Version; 88, note; 
gI, note; 95, note; 103, 
fiote;’ Ito, notes 160, 
Summary; 321, note, 
twice; 350, note; 351, 
note; 379, note; 404, 
note. 
LXXXI., 9--- See LXXX., 9, Sept., 
335, note. 
Tee ΟΣΙΙ. δι: ον 261, note, twice 
Peer eae, Gabo ee et 95, note 
Sy) it SE aa τινες 386, subnote ‘‘d’? 


678 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ΟὟ 6.32, θα 5. τ τὸ 6 
ΟὟ 10-94) -.--ττο΄΄- ZIG, 110te 
CES. 3, Sept.s 330, 110te.  Coni- 


pare Psalm CX., 8.) 
English Version. 
CX., 1---117, note; 468, note 971 
I 
I 


CR Pe aa eer acon τοῦ ποῖξ 
ΟΕ τι - 180 supnete “a 
‘XLVI., 6, Sept. ;--64, note; 65, note 

OSE Vile geese a5 447, smote 550 
CREVILG ς-- 388, subnote *‘g”’ 
PROVERBS. 
ΠῚ Bie nde o 89 ποῖα 
ΚΤ 44-2 xem. ΠΟΙ; 33, note 
8o. 

bop. a Vee ee Se 184, note 

ISAIAH. 
ELT. FOR aa ncowcnmewn QO, TLOCE 
τα, bes Ne Sp RSE ix. 
| A SR ea ne eS A 551 
ΤΟΣ Ὁ pe es a 165, note 
ΘΒ A A HA <0 | A RR 460, note 940 
Pook Vis} Salama meanness 319, note 
Προ. πες ποτ Ὸ τς 
ΕΝ ΟΝ 18... Ὁπ|6Ὁ- 417, note 
ΓΤ. 1. 14.1.5 317, note 


XLII., 8; 72, note; 95, note, thrice; 
103, note; 106, note; 
TIO, ΠΌΛΟΣ 127; 
159, note; 160, sum- 
mary; 210, note; 321, 
note, twice; 330, note; 
335, note, twice; 340, 
note; 343, note; 350, 
note; 351, note. 


note; 


SLIV:, $-----+--++----- 317, note 
Pa) IR oe IR epee ing 321, note 
RVI. αὐ πο notes oto, note 
ἘΠ ον AE ape Opa Ὁ 
τ eee τε τον 41o, note 
TORR Beto ia ste 435, note 784 
ὌΝ πο νος 386, subnote “1. 

j ἐδ»; ὦ ee GNA oer PaneReSenOp ΤΕΣ ΒΚ 5 274, note 


ΤΙ 16----—- 385, subnote ‘‘p’” 

WV 31. os 388, subnote “27 
JEREMIAH. 

ἯΙ 13:..23eeenen 385, subnote 

III., 9- -------------- 350, note 

III. 14, 15.-.-- Ἐ Θ σρσ x 

Vi, 26 ἘΠ ee 93, note 
V., 30, 31, Sept.; 183, textand 
note. 

IX. 3----<-~=375; απο 

XI. η- τσ 210, note 

XV. Tesa22-8 375, subnote ‘‘e”’ 
eV Lig Bee 360, note; 361, note 
XVII., 10--367, note; 384,subnote 

(Sa 9? 
SRI. 9-- τ τὸν 459, note 938 
LAMENTATIONS. 
IV., 314; 15’ ον 249, subnote 
EZEKIEL. 

ΤΠ1., 36-22-2224 59, note 
VIII., 1-13-----------------= 539 
VITIL., 3, 5=-SeGeeee eee 210, note 
XVI; 28:--Ἠςτὐὔὐὐ 211, note 

ΧΧΙΠ- 14 .--τοοὐοσὍ ἐέϑυ σϑϑ 539 

XXIII., 22: Ξ ΞΕΈΞ πο 350, note 

XXXII... t-10:-2. 2 eee 59, note 

XXX VIL, 5: Ὁ 257, subnote ‘‘7”’ 

XXXIX:, 20.- τὺ συ 317, note 

ΧΊΩΝ. 10-17 πο σον 59, note 
DANIEL. 

III., 1-30 -------- —-aae= IQ, DOW 

ΝΙΙ;,9.253-τττΠρΨ σ τ το 78, note 
HOSEA. 

ΤῸ, 7 -saseeee note 89, page 36 

ΧΙΙ. 4. ϑοσθ αι ..=.78, NOt 
XITI., 14--- τ 319, note 

JOEL. 
ΤΙ... 28; 29) sass ete 317, note 


I.) 32-s6<-seemee 383, subnote 


Index IIT. Index of Scripture Texts. 679 


AMOS. 

ΨΠΠ 14, 15, sept. ---2-64, note 
HAGGAI. 

1 ALR oe ie ange pea 249, subnote 

ZECHARIAH. 

PET το τ gI, note; 255, note; 
317, note. 

©. ΠΕ 21.0.0 note 89, page 36 
MALACHI. 


I., 10, I11--231, note; 232, note, 


eee EES 


234, note; 249, note; 
392, note. 
I., I1----232, note; 235, note 


DET A GSS πο ea a 375, note 
TV εξ τευ 453, note 897 


APOCRYPHA. 


ECCLESIASTICUS. 
ΤΠ, 28-25 so be ee 180, note 


NEW TESTAMENT, 


MATTHEW. 


I., I1--161, note; 389, subnote 
Jer 

I., 16--73, note; 74, note; 161, 
note. 

2 (ES 0: an eee at nes 161, note 

I., 20--- 161, note; 329, note; 
454, note gIo, twice; 
455, note gir, twice, 
and note 913, once. 

Τ, 2 τ Ξ τ τὸ 331, note 

I,, 21 85, note; 157, Sum- 
mary; 318, note; 320, 
note, twice; 331, note; 


364, note. 

Ι,, 25.::. οτος Ὁ 331, note 
Le pe ee ὩΣ σι τα 435, note 778 
i A ea eee cee πὲ 319, note 
ἘΠ ΕΙΣ vs Sek τς, 318, note 
πο Sales. See οΝ 161, note 
BTS IG) 20u22 2 aoe 453, note 907 

BED, Τ 16. 225028 ee 77, note 
III., 17_-71, note; 390, subnote 
6 m. ” 


LV. τὸ ee viii., xlix., 18, 44, 
note; 52, note; 72, 
note; 80, note; go, 
note; 02, note; 93; 
note; 94, note; 95, 
note, twice; 96, note; 
103, note; 106, note; 
Iog, note; I10, note, 
twice; 127, note; 159, 
note; 160, Summary; 
172, note; 177, ‘note: 
178, note; 184, note; 
I9gI, note; 210, note; 
213, note; 217, note; 
218, note; 237, note; 
276, note; 282, note; 
315, note; 319, note; 
221, note, twice; 326, 
note; 330, note; 332, 
note; 333, note; 334, 
note; 335, note; 340, 
note; 343, note; 350, 
note; 351, note; 352, 
note; 368, note; 372, 
note; 381, note; 382, 


680 Act I. of Ephesus. 
note, twice; 412, note; XVIII., 17--ii., iv., xliv., 196, note; 
432, note; 444, note 358, note; 359, note; 
825; 448, note 870; 460, 395, note; 462, note. 
note 941; 465, note 957; XVIIL., 17,°1322 = eee 527 
488, note; 506, 540, AVE. 2G ἘΠ Ὲ Xxxix., 196, note 
542, 548. XIX., 6--vili.,89, note; 126, sub- 
Τν:, 143-17 π τὸ: 435, note 783 note’ “ay 552: nore: 
EV2 24. ete oe. 435, note 784 twice. 
Mies eee eee 551 xX, 2902 190, note 
Wi RAGES 387, subnote ‘‘7”’ ART, at δ ee 506 
W545) 25252 388, subnote “‘g”’ XX, 42-44-2222 ee 163, note 
VI., 9--293, note; 383, subnote XXIL., 44 222<- == Ge neers 
VI., 9-13 ----387, subnote ‘7”’ AUT ., 2-32 Ioo, note 
Wale ΤΠ 385, subnote “‘c”’ XXIV., 30--=-2-2- ee gI, note 
ΧΕΙ ee oto eres ὙΞΡῚ ΒΕ 98, note XATV .,.45220 22.2522 ee 189, note 
Wilds, 2-5 ΞΞΞ: τ ΚΣ 371, note XXIV ., 462-2 189, note 
AUT: Fxg πο 6803 ὸὸ- 293, note XXV., 15, 18, 24-312 ἘΠ π- 183, 
Wilds 20:-. τες 435, note 781 REV, 27 --- ἘΞ eee 183, 
Tease sees τ 68 note XXV., 31 to 46 inclusive .... 446, 
Te ΟΞ σας feos 364, note note 840. 
TKS ΟΣ eae ee Ge 359, note XXVI., 26--106, note; 272, subnote; 
Lx ogous ἘΞ τειν τὰ 293, note 231, note; 264, sub- 
iy Sanaa ee ee aie -435, note 784 note; 279, note; 281, 
odes Bees eos 190, note note, twice. 
DOT) igs e es es 251, note SN 1 27 ΟΎ ἝὌ 230, note 
ΣΧ]: σε τον ον τ 446, note 843 XXVI., 28.. 236, note; 264, subnote; 
XI., 28--71, note; 385, subnote 279, note; 283, note. 
ee αν XV 1, 29.225 ee 305, subnote 
DG IRENE | Sapien ne NS g he 293, note XXVI., 31-36, 57, 58, 69-75 inclu- 
ἈΠ: 53°54) O0s7 2-22 S25. 516 sive__.-- 39, note; 516 
XVI., 13--62, 69, note; 363, note; ΧΊΧΥΙ, 24.355. Ὁ τῷ xlv., ποῖ ΠΣ 
389, subnote “7, XKVI., 39--22 5 eee 70, note 
DOW, 1652 Ξοῦξ 225 22 69, note XXVI.,.57) 58, 69-75 516 
18 EA 1; Pe Wane CO δε 229, note XXKVI.,.69;-7o ee shv,, note ““c”” 
XVII., 5--385, subnote ‘‘7,’’ 388, ΧΧΥΓ 9 722 xlv., note ‘‘d”’ 
qitey XXVI:, 73,74, 95-omv., ποία er 
DG.) 0 Gainey, Cy fae ee pao 446, note 841 XXVII., 46---- 220, note; 466, note 
DG 00 EA ee 44, note 964. 
ΧΙ 6, ε πεῖ ee ee 60 XXVIII, 19--109, note; 299, note; 
ΤΙ ας δεν te δ. 188, note 384, subnote. 
VDL... 15-τῷ. ὅτ. eS 197, note XXVIII., 19, 20--x5xix. πεῖν, 211 
XVIII., 15-19--39, note; 188, note, note; 413, note 702. 
twice; 196, note; 214, XK KIVA 3205 πὸ 43, note; 214, note 
note. 
XVIII., 15-21---44, note; 486, note WE 


1942; 487, note 1044. 


I., 10.22.2222 eee 77, note 


Index ITT. Index of Scripture Texts. 681 


Ι., 11--------------- 71, note 

I., 40--------------- 98, note 

I., 40-45----------- 371, note 
II., 8--------------- 368, note 
i 20 - 364, note 
III., 15------ -------- 435, note 
ὑπ ne 389, subnote ‘‘7”’ 
Wil. 33 to 362-—--—_-2 293, note 
PE 26-22 == 229, note 
xe. 45. =. 244, note; 196, note 
ee ay 209, note 
eT ee τ 208, note 
ΠῚ fe ee 506 
ἈΠ 0. "Ὁ 468, note 971 
XIV., 22--231, note; 272, subnote 
PON 25 == a 5 Ὁ 230, note 
SIV) 02 So 2b eee --- - 305, subnote 
XIV., 27-32, 53, 54, 66-72 inclu- 
sive ἘΞ’ 39, note; 516 


OEY. 20;.28 22 xly., note τ Ὁ» 
ΣΟ 7, 66, G75GS_-xlyv., note “δ᾿ 
RIV., 68, 69,"70__xlv:;note “d”’ 
ΝΟ 7175 πῖν note “(2") 

> RY ee - 466, note 964 


| ee ee eee τς 212, note 
eo ae ee τ 64, note 
132267934. 13522-2222 100, note 
Ti; 35==--291,, Subnote; 305, 
subnote; 329, note; 
420, note 738. 
ee 420, note 739 
II., 7 --74, note; 446, note 844 
ἀπ Ai 67 eee ee 449, note 859 
1) Ae 7 ak ee oe 435, note 783 
II., 52--447, note 855; 470, note 
985; 546. 
ΤΠ]. 25 8:9 See 71, note; 77, note 
TV .,°8_-.-xlix., ‘159,-note; 172; 
NOLES; 177, MOLE: «TOT, 
note: 210, note: 213, 
note; 330, note; 332, 
note; 432, note; 448, 


XXL, 
xT, 
XXL, 


xX, 
ἜΣΗΙ 
ΧΙ 
Sl. 
MIL. 
ἘΣΤΙ 
ΟΕ. 
pO. Whe 
XXIV., 
SEV. 


MRI. 
TLV. 


note 870; 460, note 
941; 465, note 957; 540, 
542, 548. See Matt. 
iv., 10. 
τ) 1S tse 274, note 
18 -----435, note 784; 469, 
note 974. 
| eee eb δ ς 98, note 
17 ss Meeps ee Ea 371, note 
CY, ees σον ον 364, note 
1p Gee ΠΕ 435, note 784 
eee 296, note; 383, note 
ay ee 388, subnote ‘‘g”’ 
6 ees 190, note 
28:5: 5.3: ἐξ ξεν e 506 
16: 9 Se ee 351, note 
(a ese sa pa 435, note 781 
Dash. estes neh 183, note 
ΖΞ sun Sei eS 468, note 971 
IG ics pee aa λς 388, subnote ‘‘g”’ 
1 jp oe an ane 257, subnote 
17-22.. 268, note; 270, note 
E722 Ξε: 257, subnote 
18: aye 305, subnote 
10. 162; “note; 230, note; 


272, subnote; 283, note; 


284, note. 
20 Seen here ς LL Se xix 
BU BEES eA 248, note 
σα Ξ 8:3 Ξ Ἐν ΠΟΙ “0.7 
516. 
31-39, 54-62 ------ 39, note 
43-------- 164, note 337. 
δ Ξε Ξ οι ξέος ςςςς 293, note 
BAH? ΞΕ ουσΣ οτος 516 
56.57.5 .5::: ἘΠ᾽ ‘note "C2 
Oe oo ei eae xlv:,{note ‘‘d ”’ 
59) 60,6122 xlv., note “ce” 
Lasse ee aie 306, subnote 
36-44i2ee eee 305, subnote 
39--74, note; 305, subnote; 
408, note. 
39, 409. .5ΞΞ- -- oe 305, subnote 


ΔΙ, 42, 43----307, subnote 


"5. ee note 90, page 37, 


twice; 317, note. 


Act I, of Ephesus. 


JOHN 
ΠΡ eee fe eee ToI, note 
1 τ, 2. τ ϑιττ οἱ 365, note 
fs I, 2, 3) 10---73, note; 351, 
note. 
Oe oe a tee ee 351, note 


115 τὸ; note; 1372, note: 
446, note 843. 

Το ieee ee 274, subnote; 292, 
note; 413, notes 698, 
700. 

ΤΟ ΕΣ, 5, 7 (ee Ὲ 319, note 

1 PET Oo es 264, subnote 

«5 14--66, note; 74, note; $5, 
note; 98, ‘9g, text, 
and 98, note; 128, 
notes 187 and 188; see 
the text as there re- 
ferred to; 159, Sum- 
Mary; 104;) Notes 217, 
note; 229, note; 202, 
note; 363, note; 389, 
subnote) “a; 400, 
note; 416, note 716; 
418, note 728; 419, 
note 734; 428, note 
760; 447, note 853; 456, 
note 913; 458, notes 
925 and 930; 459, note 
932; 468, note 970. 

1, 1738: ee Ae 418, note 726 

Ee e277. ποθ | 321 snore: 
329, note; 343, note. 


ἢ ἢ Gea dee ae PP ee 161, note 
HD a 5 1 de HR τ τ εν 319, note 
1Π 192-159, note; 326; note 
ΤΠ ΠΟ αν δ. τὸ eu or 99, note 
ΤΙ Ζα 2 ew 465, note 957 
ΤΠ 57: 25 dh NOt 2 6O ποῖα 


17. 5 2224168, note; 280, note; 
448, note 872. 


TT Gee te ees 87, note 
if Ὁ Oc nt AE ape 265, subnote 
1h Dee 0) OMS oF ΣῈ τό τον 265, subnote 


wae 


TUT: 3622022 eee 85, note 
TIL. ,.335 34 5:55 - 265, subnote 
DEL 34a 72, note; 216, note 
111. 35. 446, note 843 
Ιν.,.8:.:. Ὁ ΌσΕΘ.. IgI, note 
TV.., 2324-22) 2a 235, note 


IV., 23; 24 “186, subnotess fr 
IV., 24--408, note; 440, note 
807. 

V4 1922522 434, note 770 
V., 19-31--228, note; 229, note 
N.; 21:35 θαυ 78, note 179 
\., 21-30. 2 413, note 
V., 22,27 and after_-446, note 

840. 
V., 26--228, note; 274, subnote 
Vv 


Vi; 39 --222 ee 385, subnote 
VI., the Eucharistic part of the 
chapter =—= 253, note; 
290, note; 408, note. 
VI., 26-64---264, subnote; 289, 
note. 
VI.,, 32, 33, 47 ἴο 52. 275, oe 
VI.,, 32, 33; 42, 15, 50.153 
62,62. 274, subuete 


VI1.; 33; 38; 5kse=== 2 70, Note 
VI., 33,39, 49, 54, 57--413, note 
V1, 33, 48-64-22 τ θὰ 300, note 
ΝΙ., 35-41 Ξ πότου 228, note 
ΝΙ.,.35τϑ΄. 5 78, note 178 
ΝΕ: 389, subnote “7 
VI., 47-69--2-= 240, note 
VL, 482222222522 283, note 
VL, 48, 51, 53, 54,55, 56, 57: 

58, 63-2229 281, 


note, twice. 
VI., 50 ----438, text, and note 


"90: 
VI., 50, 51, 582-430, (εξ ἘΠῚ 
note 798. 


VI., 51--273, noe 2 ῦο; ΠΟΙ: 
283, note; 284, note; 
438, note 797. 

VI., 53--240, note, thrice 27a 
note; 289, note; 290, 


Index IIT. Index of Scripture Texts. 683 


note and subnote “‘a;”’ 2 9G-R9-. MEE 434, note 770 
291, subnote, twice; XI., 25----228, note; 292, note 
408, note; 525. SET AG) ose he ee xlix. 
1 Gos ea ee 273, note MT 28.2 9.6 τ 248, note 
VI., 56--251, note, four times; XIII., 36-38 inclusive; 39, note; 
262, subnote; 273, note, 516. 
twice; 472, notes, ἈΠ 8. τιν. χῖν., ποία “δ᾽ 
thrice. XIV., 6--xvii.; 78, note 178; 100, 
te 56,5 725255. 250, note; 368, note; 189, note; 264, 
note; 518, twice. : subnote; 292, note; 


Vi. 57236, note; 251, note, 317,, note; 560, note; 
twice; 252, note, five 378, note; 381, note, 
times; 253, note; 268, twice; 385, subnote; 
subnote; 273, note, 387, subnote ‘‘7,”? 413, 
thrice; 281, subnote note; 446, note 846, 
ἘΣ ΔΩ, ποίθ ΘΟ: and page 515. 


473, notes, four times. SEDVELG crate) de lve 542 
VI., 61, 62, 63------- 275, note. SOUS ἴθ Feral 313, note 
Wie, 625 62, text; 69; ote? 70; RVs rove ee 434, note 770 

note; 270, note. ΧΙ το αὔτ Ἐν 381, note; 388, 
Wis, 632—-=,236, note; 262, sub- subnote “v;’? page 

note; 268, subnote; 515. 

274, note; 275, note; ΣΙΝ (o phe πὸ πα ον: 218, note 


287, note; 290, note; ΧΙν τὸ 
291, note; 292, note; 
408, note; 438, note 


) 7a ly 27; 
note 90; 43, note; 322, 


3 note. 
00 
; MDW; TG-1922- 2252 3522 214, note 
ὦδε , es a aA hy noe MEV.) 16; 17/2600" = 37, note 90 
Pen ar a totes ΦΩ XIV., 16-19, 26--_215, note; 314, 
WET. 4022.2 22-25-53 5132; ποθ 
VIII., 42-. 73, notes 166, 167; 528 ae 
ca 7.) ? ? MIV., 26-263; note; 215, note: 
WHE P54 aes 466, note 961 317, note 
i cane pate 434, a 770 ΧΎΝ 2oue oe 390, subnote ‘‘h”’ 
IxX., oe Sl ee , note DEV 3 hs tees eee E85 τοῖο 
1X., 38-------------- 341, note XV., 16--381, note; 388, subnote 
ms, SS 385, subnote Ἐς, pAe 
Ὁ, 515, 542. 
Dis eR Ge sh ie 189, note 


Χν.; 26:-:-.- 43, note; 63, note; 
218, note, thrice; 314, 
LIte; 317, note, thrice; 


X., 16--189, note; 190, note; 
435, note 783. 
X., 30--313, note, twice; 389, 


subnote ‘‘g.’’ 90: ΠΟΙΕ: 

os Nee 2 eae 98, note XVI., 7--------------- 218, note 

> Ce Re eee 261, subnote, XVI., 7-16--37, note 90; 63, note: 
twice. 218, note. 

X., 26... 428, text, and note XVI., 132-43,, note; 214, note; 
799. 322, note. 


81 Act I. of Ephesus. 
XVI., 13, 14--466, note 962; 469, Il.; 30, 31, 3222-2 =a 
note 972. ΤΠ 283. 5. 268 317, note, twice. 
XVI., 14----316,/ note;'318, note TE3334) 37-222 — 468, note 971 
BCA) ORES OF Vie Ste menc MOND Ep, 362, note TI; 3622222225 468, note 971 
2G GOES | ΞΡ τ εν 8 559 446, note 843 II., 38----289, note; 298, note 
ΧΙ 23 ose et ee eee 383, note Til: 2) 222242" 296, note; 528 
ΧΟ 23,26. - 381, note WII; 55, 5622222 ee 296, note 
ΘΙ 23-2650 ath 381, note VII., 56:-:-:-.:Ξ 435, note 781 
DOW, (23; A262 222028 Eee ΝΣ VITL. 20-24 eee 443, note 
XVI., 23-27 -- 388, subnote ‘‘v”’ X., the whole chapter --xlvi.,. 
RSV lope 22.) 27. 120) 27 515 note “ae; 
ΙΕ Bits Sees 73, note; 528 Xi, ΞΘ τὰ 307, subnote 
DG A ΟΞ τε 368, note X., 4τ.-..--- BOR ΞΘ ΘΕ 
D410) 6 Gc ay eens) ποτν 85, note XL. | 1-19 xlvi.,) mote a; > 
PRAY Gales Senta τοις ἐς 73, note ΧΙ" ποιε 2 
ΣΟ ΤΠ τ 21, 22.125. 215. note XIl., τοῖς Soe 306, note 
ἈΦ 0 ae Geen ON SN oe 183 XIV., 8-18.2=2388, ΠΡ ΠΟΙ ΒΘ = oe 
ΘΓ 20-23yeeeee -: 533, note XIV .,| 14---22 oe 232, note 
eV Ms cheer 2: 27 A π᾿ 516 XV 1) <t-32e oe xlvi., note ‘‘a,’’ 
XVIII., 13-19, 25-27 inclusive-_-_39, xlvii., ~~ note’ > eae. 
note. xlvill., πΘΕΘ - 
DROW DIGI το πα xly., note ΩΣ XV., 1434 --22se soe xliv. 
DO VEIT ΖΕ ΞΞ 5 Δ15 xiv; note “* da”? XV., 7-12 <li siete  Σ 
WIM: (26,2725 2 xly., note “2”? XV., 14-18 --_xlvilit, note 
ΟΣ ee 127, note KV., 29--== --- 292, note 
ΣΟΧΟ ΤΣ he aL EE ti 367, note XVII.,. 30,.38--=22-- == 127, note 
DD. CENS (on 27. «πὸ ee χχχίχ. XVII., 321----- 250; note; 2716: ore 
DEX.) 19, 26-2 = «σοῦ; note 840. 
RON OP eb 293, note XK. 7: ΕἸ sees xlvii., note 
DX, (25-3020 3) 2s 305, subnote XX., 28.189, note; 227, note; 
twice; 3265, tote; 271; 
ACTS note; 388, subnote 
Το ΟΣ σις σερρίξοις τονε το Ixviii. ‘‘ x," -308, mates 435; 
τι 2 ee ee 161, note note 787; 448, note 
Ae aoaa gu set, aida 2 212, note 863. 
DO Rie Geet iy ει 43, note KX.,°29, 30) 2 eee 190, note 
Dak ee τυ 367, note XXIL., -16..- 2 289, note 
ἘΠ es ee ee 37, note 90 ROW.) 75s ee note 8, page 35. 
II., 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 33---317, ROMANS. 
note. 
TE 4516; 07, τὸ 38, 30. 217, I., 3--74, ‘Hote: 161, πΟΙΒῚ 
note. 436, note 789. 
ἹΠῚ 2 pe -. 483, subnote Ι. 7. eee 383, subnote 
ἀπ 23-33 soe 413, note Π 25 ΡΨ - 372, note; 542 
II., 27-31--287, note; 306, sub- L., 25, 26... 0 Se 321, note 
note; 520. |., 2822 ee 99, note 


Index ITl,. Index Ὁ Scripture Texts. 655 


ΠῚ τ τ τ -- ee 189, note 
Mii Πρ το HOLE 
11.72.5... Ὁ -- 204, subnote; 316, 

notes, twice. 
We a eee 383, subnote 
he es 435, note 787 
VG See 477, note IoI4 
Vd 5. τ τς 520 
‘es? -- -- 420, note 743 
(0 eee 305, subnote; 520 
kOe eee 230, note 
τι εἶν! were “Sa? 
‘6 25 a 390, subnote ‘‘7”’ 
ΝΠ 6.----.-.--- 438, note Soo 
ΠΣ τ 74, note; 162, note; 
389, subnote “ ὦ," 433, 

note 767. 

VIII., 9--218, note; 291, subnote 
Adel) Ga | oe 291, subnote 
ἍΠΕΡ, 23.----.-Ξ- --ος:Ἦ 423, note 
ΝΠ A ee  ἰ᾿ 435, note 786 
WDE. 26). 2282 ᾿ς -τ-. 182, note 
RUE 2.0 as 5. - -ε---- 89, note 


VIII., 34--314, note, four times; 
386, subnote ‘‘%.”’ 


Ἐπ RP, Ve ne 423, note 
IX., 5--459, note 934, and page 
537: 

ΠΧ 2 "27.5.3: ἘΞ ὲ Ὁ 435, note 783 
BN Die es re RxVill, mote ..@’ 
ies, Beek 334, note; 351, note 
>, AS (7 eee 386, subnote ‘‘e”’ 
Sgn (eat ie peel 384, subnote 
2. pe © eae 387, subnote ‘‘72”’ 
ASAE 5 SS eee 332, note 

2-8 τ CRS Ee Sere 320, note 

PRT 2 τὰ ἐθ 180, note 

ΠῚ τὸ 233, note, twice; 235, 
note. 

ΧΗ AY 3 Rr τὸ ese aes 527 

MIT. 14-321, note, .and: 442, 
note 824. 

ΤΙ. ¢ © aaa ee 180, note 

i γα δ᾽. ee ee eee δ. 506 

ΠΤ ay, a es ee ree 123, note 


XIV., 9--332, note, 435, note 787 


ΧΟ case τ 387, subnote “2. 
». Gh" Page ee es 370, subnote ‘‘a’’ 
ΧΥΤ ty Reena ees eS EA BPE ix 


1 RS Re einer ee οΣ 383, subnote 
1 Oey eer eee 437, note 793 
ΤΠ  ϑέόεςι Ξε τ τε 413, note 
τς τε. Ὡς ae 290, note 
ΠῚ ; BE-s4- -- Ξ ΞΕ Ξ Ξ ΞσΤΟῚ note 
ΤΠ (ce τ Ὁ τ ED 66, note 
Ti 7 es ee - 383, note 
Vi 03°62 861: 214, note 
ἊΝ Ue re  ἘῈ 1X. 
Wie gies oe τὰ ee 181, note 
NI. .Oy 10222 Sx. Note} ΧΙ 


note; 276, note; 292, 

note, and 321, note. 
MI. 272265, notes. mrs) ΠΟΙΕΣ 

510, note; 214; Hote: 


Wi, τ δ τ 466, note 
ΜΠ 22;ete) = 71: note 760 
ἈΠ 30 νὸς ER.) ΠΟΙΘ 

VIII., 6__66, note; 313,note; 446, 
note 843. 

Χο Nae 33 8 ae ΨῈ 364, note 

ΧΟ 16-231, note3272subnote 

GAG | Sa rere eed τοῖν 248, note 
BRL, SEOM: τε τ eee ἐΠ 166, note 

PG CRG ty ie get hes Se 59, note 146. 

XS, ποῦ Se Ξ. 182, note 422 


ΕΠ 27. 5 τὸ note: 230. note, 
25Ξ, smote; 272, 5105 
note; 283, note; 284, 


note. 
ΧΙ Ιἠ 26.220, note, twice; 291, 
note. 
XIL.; the’ chapter 318; note 
P= (0 SSRs 9 te (Rae et cages meee -- 317; note 
ΧΟ 55 eae ee αν 383, subnote 
ΤΙ RoR 9 feu - ---- 293, note 
ΧΙ το eee ee 314, note 
SIT. XIII. and XIV. 237; note 
90. 


ΞΕ ee 162, note; 435, note. 
787. 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


ον: 20: π΄ Ξ τ τοὶ 228, note 

RV, 20; 232-126; subuote, “*d,;”’ 
353, note. 

ORV i OTs Poy ἘΙΕνΣ 228, note, twice 

DOV. 922,450 sees en 78, note 179 

ie ee 525 


XV,, 42, 43, 44--304, subnote, 
twice; 306, subnote. 


ἈΝ 44 los eee 306, subnote 
DG fan. by ie Sen Ἀν ἘΞ ae 2 66, note 
OV 1 A7) ΘΕΟΣ ae ἘῈ 363, note 
REV oy SEs 52, Εἰς. === 434, note 
768. 
XV., 53, 54 ------ 449, note 877 
BW fA ee ee TO, HOLE 
Vs, 545° 55 -2- === 229, note 
MVE; 54-505. 2-2-4 8228. note 
VL tae xlvii., top note 


EVIL. 22525" 321, note; 443, note 


II. CORINTHIANS. 


ΤΊ 22. “4... τὺ ὙὍἘὉῳΣ 66, note 
1 ἼΞῚ2΄ Ὁ UA A ES 214, note 
ΤΠ Ga Ρ τ. 438, note 800 
ΠῚ SS tee το ΞὉ 230, note 
1 8) ric apa, ae ce 218, note 
Te 117.. eek xlyi;, note 7 @”’ 
1: 7 eee ee 435, note 766 
ΤΠ ee eee 313, note 
V., 15 ---------- 435, note 787 


ΔΝ τὸ. 5 xxi., 441, note 816 
We, 212-363 mote: 434; ‘note 
7753 469, note 977; 546. 


Wales ΡΒ ela ae sco 174, note 
WNT Arr Os eee xxx., note 
VIII., 9--419, note 731; 447, note 
857. 
Ἂς τι τυσε ip nee ape = 245, note 
DOT 20 et et tee 241, note 
POT Sick er al 60, note 150 
GALATIANS. 
Ἂς Ase ee eae mote 


ἘΠῚ ΘΕ συν, 1752. text) aid 


note 369; 66, note; 180, 
text and note; 250, 
note; 321, note, twice; 
372, note; 412, tote; 
428, note 760; 443, 
note, twice. 


I.) 292-222 475, note IoI9 
II., 10-21 inclusive_--39, note 
Il. ‘YI-15§- 2-5 xlvii 
II, 11-21 = -xhiv., ivi oie: 

note; 516. 
IIL.; 13-22. 222=—— 421, note 750 
ITT, ,°36 222 eee 436, note 789 


IV., 4-73, note: 74, ΠΟΘ: 220 
note; 319, note; 436, 
note 790; 45I, note 
886. 

IV., 5--423, note; 449) (note 
874. 

IV., 6_.63, note; 66, note; 218; 
note, thrice. 


IV., 20-------------- 181, note 
V., 1.2 ee 435, note 786 
V., 19-22. xem) Ore; clan 


note; 276, note; 321, 
note; 377, note: 


EPHESIANS. 
I., 5----423, note; 449, nore 
874. 
L., 7-2. eee 189, note 
I., τὸ----- eae 317, note 
L., 17 ΕΞ ΟΞΕΕ 383, subnote 
I., 22.::- 222 197, note 
11. 4 386, subnote 
ΤΠ ye aegis 383, subnote ‘‘é ”’ 
ΤΠ, 8, 92-22 418, note 727 
Π|Ι.,. 1το---- Ὁ 70, ΠΟΕΘ 78 
TVG SG 2teee 228, note; 317, note 
IV., 15-24-23 em 197, note 
V., 2.22222 eee 363, note 
Vi) 25-2 363, note 
VI., 10-18 _ =. <== 9 5 57 ΠἸΘΈΕΙ 
VI. 17 £222 viii. 
VILL, 182-5222 eee 314, note 


Index ITT. Index of Scripture Texts. 687 


PHILIPPIANS. 
oS Ssaes SS ae 218, note 
Pig. 63, nore 
ἘΠΕ ἘΞ πεν - ες 157, note 304 


BPs. Go 75: - Ὁ IIo, note; 445, 
note 837; 460, note 
942, and 538. 

ΤΙ ἀξοϑιτσ - 458, note 930 

UES % Ξ τς ως 463, note 949 

II., 5-12--83, note; 403, note; 
404, note, twice. 
II., 6 --77, note; 463, note 949 
TT.) 6, 7=-67;, note; 328, note: 
435, note 785. 
ΤΠ δ; 7, 8. 580, subnote “ c” 
iL; 7.68; note; $1, note; 82, 
note; 99, note; 220, 
110te; 274, note; 212, 
note; 326, note; 332, 
note; 205, note; 433, 
note; 434, note 769; 
446, note 851; 447, 
note 852; 448, note 
873; 449, note 875; 
463, note 950; 468, 
note 967. 

11 55 τις. 157, note 306; 320, 
note; 419, note 729; 
435, note 782; 446, 
note 845. 

PEO 1O ao 461, note 947 

ΠΠ 9) ΤΟΣ 11-283; *note;, Sa, 
note, thrice; 92, note; 
IIo, note, twice; 463, 
note 949. 

II., 10 ----88, note; 341, note; 
540, twice. 

II., 10, 11--ΟἹ, note; 99, note; 
ΠῚ} Mote “120,. Note: 
463, note 949. 


i pees SA .----85, note 
| TSS iy (ae ὑπ ον τε ει 233, note 
ὙΠ στ igs 431, note 
ΠΈΣΟΙ ΝΣ ΞΡ Ξ 6 «1 413, note 


IV., 18----316, note; 363, note 


Se cr ee 


COLOSSIANS. 

dS A Ae eee 372, note 
hf eae ee yd SNS. 189, note 
ΤΣ. Ὁ Da a 313, note 
TS 16,317) ἘΝῚ eee 73, note 
ΤΙ ΞΞ ἐσ. ΟΣ 446, note 843 
I., 18_-197, note; 228, note; 

413, note. 
1 SN (0 Remon ἘΠῚ τι τὸ IoI, note 
1 21 22..5- οὐ TD) 413, note 
I., 22-___413, note; 449, note 

877. 

| ee: eee 66, note; 217, note 
Bi RG 2 ee Se 228, note 
ἘΠΕ 15 ΞΕ ΞΈΣ: XVli.; 18; 321, note 
ΠῚ eee «Wet ihn 197, note 
1 Cpa, aera oe 387, subnote ‘7 ” 
Go 3s A eas τι τ eM a note 


ΠῚ 4 --78, note 178; 413, note 


I. THESSALONIANS. 


ΤΟΙ ee Bes a a ἃ 59, note 

| A πον τ τ το be 59, note 

ΤΠ ΟΞ 5 ἘΞΕ ΌΥ 383, subnote 

Wi) LO ee tee ee 435, note 787 

ἈΠ 23. πε ΌΤΑΝ 441, note 816 

Wie oo a oe 375, subnote ‘‘/f”’ 
1. THESSALONIANS. 

TY G2 δεν ee ee 63, note 

ΤΠ ΤῈ ee yea ee 1x: 

I. TIMOTHY. 

bY ene nese SPD 183, note 

| OAM τ saute uate taped ame ἡ 245, note 

ΤΟ ΧΟ ἘΣ ENA A) 59, note 


1 1.2 22 287; subnote: 977? 

ΤΙ Si33—=xvil.) 2665 note; 314 
note, twice; 369, note; 
385, subnotes, twice; 
386, subnote ‘#,” 
389, subnote ‘e,” 
391, note, twice; 515, 
four times; 516. 

EE  δεεες eka 363, note 


688 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Tl. ὦ-----.-.-------.--. 233, note 
2 ee ee 15 
ΓΕ 2 12 cee te eee 14 


1Π:, 15°--_ Preface, iv:, xxxix.; 
43, note; 322, note. 

ἹΠΠ 155) 1622 ee 214, note 

III., 16 ----66, note; 159, Sum- 
mary; 227, note; 363; 
note; 389, subnote ‘‘d.”’ 


TV. 3;0502 1|-ΞΞ 156, note 295 
TW th5 eee σ5--- 165, note 
veo Eps ia τ τ - Ξ 14 
ἍΙΣ τ cine senes 77, note; 434, note 
ΜΠ 2002) τὺν xxiv,, note ‘‘/”’ 
Wi 20) ει τεσ 182, note 


it. TIMOTHY. 


I.,, 10-2229, note; 719, note; 
448, note 864; 449, 


note 877. 
DG pee 0), | a ee 245, note 
1: 8 ὐπὸ 436, note 789 
ΤΣ pared ee ene 376, subnote 
Το τα xXxiy., ποΐξο. “3. 
Oeil ee -- 59, note 
TIDUS: 
EER Sr ape Be ee 14 
Tis Ae Ss Se teens ες: 363, note 
117 6 22222 289, note; 448, note 
872. 
Tig . 182, note; 188, note 
ΠῚ yy στ 395, note 
HEBREWS. 
j Ge (eh ieee 477, notes, twice 
τα τούς TOR ees 363, note 
Ds 2ιε Ξε 73, note; 155, note; 
319, note, twice. 
Lge whee 73, notes 165, 167; 


313, note, Greek; 446, 
note 843; 528. 

1 σευ: 89, note, twice; ΟἹ, 
note; 93, note; 225, 
note; 341, note. 


1. ;:6;-8-2 2 ee 335, note 
Li i325 468, note 971 
II:, 9----77, 100, 75, note 160; 
228, notes, twice; 413, 
note. 
II., 9-18--434, note; 445, note 
838; 470, note 990; 542. 
1 ΟΞ 69, note; 469, note 
977. 
ΤΙ., τ4-----128,, note; 220, ete 
ΤΙ Τὰ Is 319, note; 363, 
note; 448, note 864; 
449, note 877. 
ΤΙ.,. 54-17-2390, Subavte: 7] 
II., 14-18 --66, note; 287, note 
II., 14-18.and DIT, 1; 2--=375, 
note, and _ subnote 


ce Ω."" 
Ili, 16.-:--:- 222 22367,/enumeve 
1, ΤΟΎ 2 363, note 
ΤΙΣ 16, ete: S222 436, note 789 
1 175. Saree 364, note, twice 


II., 18--_-2877 note; 365; nete 
Ifl., I --==313)//nOte; 263; tere: 
twice; 365, note; 542, 

5950. 
III., 1, 2:Ξ.- 122} note; 473, ere 
and subnote; 469, note 


975; 971, note 972; 546, 


twice. 
Π|., 5,(6 eee 376, subnote 
11 16" 2228e"eEe 471, note 993 
IV., τΆ-6..:.- 3 9 τ 
IV., 15'=---=-_--—-= == 3 Sy eee 


390, ““ 434, note 
775; 469, note 977; 
471, note 994. 

IV., 15) ΕἸΣ 287, note; 305, 
note; 307, subnote; 
516. 

IV, 15, 162-22=— 470, note 990 

DV 06 6 ee 388, subnote ‘“‘s’”’ 

Vi; 7210" 2222255 470, note 979 

V., 9--469, note 977; 470, note 
988. 

Ve. 1022-22 =e eee 470, note 989 


WI., 
VIL., 


VIL., 
Vil, 
VIL, 
VIL., 
VIL. 


ὙΠ: 
Wil. 


Vili, 
oem 


VIL; 


VIIL., 
VIIL., 


IX., 
IX., 


Index ITT. Index of Scripture Texts. 


NG ae eee ΧΙ note. 2% 


10 π΄ - xxv, note “Ὁ 
19, 20--390, subnote “Κ᾽ 


15-28 inclusive--391, note 


0 ------ 365, note 


25. 3 ὁ π-τΠΠΦΠΞὋΕὋ.- 371, note 
2 es eee -371, note 
29 7 1 ae 364, note, twice 
og e+ ae ie π Γ΄- 366, note 
2 387, subnote ‘‘2,” 


27.225. -ἰ.- 368, note 

24, 25, and VIII., 1 --296, 
note; 368, note. 

24-28 ---------------- 542 

7 anes XVii.; lxvill.; 314, 
note; 315, note; 371, 
note; 381, note; 386, 
sibnote “ΡΣ 01, 
note, and page 515. 

25-28.. 363, note; 385, sub- 
note ‘‘w.’’ 


., I, 2---365, note; 378, note 
ne 471, note 994 


ἜΑ aici 100, note; 378, note 
GUS. τ): sk 2S vill. 


the chapter ----- 315, note 
1-28 inclusive---391, note; 
515. 


ES Ase xlvi., note αν 

τς πο SIS ee ee 515 

ΤᾺ. aces eee ες 515 

NO τ OA nS 368, note 

IX, 9, τὸο--------- 230, note 

Tx. 10.-=-=40, note; 392, note; 
515. 

IX., 12, 24----25; 387, subnote 
ae ga, 

] is 2 Ee ee a ee 230, note 

IX., 14--72, note; 291, subnote; 


305, subnote; 428, note 
762. 


689 
LX.) τ 1371, MOLE 43901, Mote 
TX, τὸ. Τὸ, τη: xlvi., note “a; 
ΧΙ top mote: 217. 
note. 
ΙΝ 24.--.314, note; 368, note: 
542. 
NG ee Ὁ ΡΘΕ Ioo, note 
Wels Toko see εὐ oe 230, note 
> Silo Cy | ene a ee 391, note 
Χ FO Se -- 317, note 
P.O) (ce manganese 329, note 
PGi NORGE eae 392, note 
X., I2--230, note; 387, subnote 
‘<2 5)? 291, ΠΌΡΕ 
X.,, 12, 1 2938, subuote “2” 
392, note. 
Digs, i SER Ss AL 365, note 
X., 19-23-._388, subnote “‘s”’ 
ey 10:24. -Ξ-ΞΞ -- τς - 542 
X., 29--------------- 72, note 
ΕΠ ye 73, note 
ΧΕ πων Ὁ note; 387, subnote 
ΘΠ ee π- 209, note 
ΠῚ 1.2. ἘΞ 388, subnote ‘‘2’’ 
ΤΙ 24. Ue ee Ὴ Ν Vili 
XIII., 8--281, note; 376, subnote 
DOU ene τ“ ee ν- 235, note 
SITE 55, 19Gts os eee 234, note 
JAMES. 
jie deme ite ea 35, note 88 
De ty Meee ete bee 383, subnote 
τ 25.Ξ-.--Ξ-- ---- 435, note 786 
νἀ. - 387, subnote ‘‘7”’ 
I, PETER. 
1 10, 01,°52-=-2-=— 407, note 
I., 11-- 218, note; 291, subnote 
I., 18, 19--388, subnote ‘‘ zw ”’ 
II., 5--------------- 234, note 
II., 5, 9 ----Viii., 39, note; 4o, 
note; 190, note; 230, 
note, twice; 392, note, 
twice; 512, 515. 
II., 9 ---------------- ---- 508 


090 Act I. of Ephesus. 


TT '24 423538 -subnote ° 25"? 
435, note 784; 445, 
note 832. 
TIL 13-2 230, note; 712, note, 
twice; 419, note 732. 


2 ὸὕ: 289, note 


PV; τὸ Ὁ τὸ note: "227" note; 
409, note, twice; 413, 
note, twice. 

EV, 4: 222 375, subnote ‘‘d”’ 


II. PETER. 


1 3 πολ ἃ 66, note; a very im- 
portant explanation of 
this difficult text by 
St. Cyril; 89, note; 377, 
note. 

go τη OLE 


I. JOHN. 


Τοῦτ ear 86, note; 413, note 

1. (452-5 7S, NOE 178: 303, 
note. 

1 τ 2 τυ! 200. note; 217» 
note: 363, note; 366, 
note; 368, note; 381, 
note; 385, subnote; 
391, note, twice; 515, 


twice. 
ΤΠ aN Ne ae 367, note; 371, note 
EE. 20 sone fe 384, subnote 
Who 2@esS= Sees 292, note 
II. JOHN. 


REVELATIONS. 


I., 5----189, note; 230, note; 
A413, notes 512. 

16) 232 vill.; 39, note; 190, 
note; 392, note. 

1: 10 2.22 xlvii., top note 


IL, 5.242 298, note 

II., 2---. 298, note; 395; note; 
443, note. 

II., 22-..--- 368, note; 254,500. 

note. 

V., S-2-222-225 eee .-235, note 
VI., 9, Io ----------- 369, note 
VI., 9-12----249, subnote; 314, 

note. 
VIII.,-3, 4242387, ΒΕ ΠΟΙ ΘΝ 
XI, 15---xxx., note; 125, uote 
XVIL.; 4, τὸ; 162 X., and 522 
XVII., the whole chapter---_xliii. 
X VIL. 4.222232 22, note 26 
XVI.) 142.43 445, note 839. 
XVI.) 18. ose xli., xliii., note 
XVIII, 1-24-2322 xliii., note 
XVIII., the whole chapter_-_-_-xli. 
XVIII, 3. ---- 2:20 23 2 ee x. 
EX. iors 388, subnote “2. 
XX., I-7---XXX., HOLE] ΤΟΙ notes 
123, NOt 
ΧΑ fais ee 55 319, note 
XXI., 4, etc.--445, note 832; 448, 
note 864. 
XXI., 8--xxx:, mote; <li eres 
276, note; 292, note: 
377, note; 401, note. 
XXII., 8, 9 =--218, 182. mote; aoa, 
subnote ‘‘/.”’ 
ALL; 18, T922oeee 428, note 760: 


TIN Tomes τς 


INDEX TO GREEK WORDS AND GREEK 
EXPRESSIONS. 


The Greek is so much that we cannot attempt to index it all, 
but only such words and expressions as are of special importance as 
bearing on dogma, discipline, or rite. Our aim is to omit no such 
word or expression. The words and expressions omitted are of very 
little importance except as bearing on the correctness of the transla- 
tion, etc. 

The English of single words of the Greek will be found with 
them in this Index. The English of the Greek expressions, when 
not found with them, will be found on the pages referred to. 


A 


ἁγιασμόν, tov, the consecration, 282, note. 

“Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τό, the Holy Ghost, see under Πνεῦμα, 

adov, Hades; Valentinus the Apollinarian adduces Athanasius as say- 
ing that the Cosubstancer heretics came from it, page 431, 
note. 

ἄξυωα, unleavene. vreaa: literally, ‘‘ unleavened things;’’ 231, none. 
See ἄρτος, ‘The Greek of the New Testament does not apply 
the name bvead (ἄρτος) to unleavened things (ἄξυμα). “Aptos 
is sometimes derived from αἴρω, Zo razse, that is, by the leaven, 
and hence ancient usage distinguished between ἄρτος, raised, 
that is, leavened bread, and ἄξυμα, unleavened things, which 
are not raised. Compare Bingham’s Aziig., XV., 11., 5, 6. 

᾿Αθανάσιος, Athanasius, referred to by Valentinus, the Apollinarian, 
as against the Cosubstancers, 431, note. 


692 Act I. of Ephesus. 


᾿Αθέμιτον, lawless, godless, wrong, 9, note 8. 

ἀΐδιος, eternal in the expression, ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀΐδιος Υἱὸς zat Λόγος, ““ the 
eternal Son and Word of God;’’ 426, 427; see the context of 
the Greek in the note on page 433: ἀΐδιου, eternal, in the expres- 
sion τῆς ἀϊδίου γεννήσεως, the eternal birth, 436, text. Compare 
note 791 there. 

alviypata, riddles, 448, note 869. 

αἱρετιχός, 6, the heretic; applied by Nestorius to Cyril of Alexandria, 
or to some other of his opponents; 474, note 1007. 

αἴτιος, Author or Cause; 470, note 987. 

αἰώνιον, in the expression, ‘‘ αἰώνιον ᾿᾽ δὲ αὐτὸν ““ βασιλέα,᾽᾽ [the Arian 
Emperor Constantius] εἰρήχασιν of τὸν Υἱὸν ἀΐδιον ἀρνούμενοι, [the 
Arians], 20, note; afwviwy, efernal, in the expression τῶν 
αἰωνίων Αὐγούστων, το, note 20; 41, note 99. 

αἰωνιότης, Eternity in the expression, ἡ ἡμετέρα αἰωνιότης, “ our Eter- 
nity, ’’ 19, note 20; blasphemously used by Theodosius to 
Placidia. 

ἄχτιστον θεόν, uncreated God; 432, note. 

ἀληθείᾳ, τῇ, the reality, 282, note. 

ἁμάρτημα; 566 προπατουριχόν, 

ἀναγκαίως, necessarily, 32, note 67. 

ἀνάθεμα ἔστω} Let him be anathema! Let him be accursed! 180, 
note 402; 432, note; ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα, 431, note. 

ἀναθεματίξω, 7 anathematize, I curse; 172, note 365; the Bishops at 
Ephesus after the reading of the Epistle of Nestorius which 
denies the Incarnation and favors the worship of Christ’s sep- 
arate mere humanity shouted out, “Ὅλη ἡ οἰχουμένη ἀναθεματίξει 
τὴν ἀσεβὴ θρησχείαν αὐτοῦ, ‘* All the inhabited world anathema- 
tizes his imptons religion / 178, note 389. 

ἀναχειμένους, in the expression, τοὺς Θεῷ ἀνακειμένους, those who have 
dedicated themselves to God; 175, note 383. 

ἀναίμαχτος, unbloody, that is wthout blood, in the following expres- 
sions: ἀναίμαχτος ϑυσία, unbloody sacrifice; 40, note; 287, note; 
see Sépfoka; ἀναίμαχτον in the expression, τὴν ἀναίμαχτον ἐν ταῖς 
ἐχχλησίαις τελοῦμεν λατρείαν, that is, St. Cyril’s Ecumenically ap- 
proved words, ‘‘/n the Churches we perform the unbloody service,”’ 
that is, ‘‘ the service without blood,’’ note 597, page 229; com- 
pare notes 598, 599, where the expression is explained at 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 698 


length; τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν, the unbloody service, 287, note; 
ἀναίμαχτος͵ unbloody, without blood, 231, note; 233, note; Λαίτοι 
προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμαχτον ϑυσίαν, καὶ τὴν λογιχὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν, 
that is, ‘‘ Although tt ἐξ necessary to offer an UNBLLOODY SACRI- 
FICE and to bring the reasonable service,’’ 233, note; ἀντὶ θυσίας 
τῆς OC αἱμάτων λυγιχὴν xan dvatpaxtoy καὶ τὴν μυστιχὴν ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον 
τοῦ Κυρίου συμβόλων yapw ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ χαὶ τοῦ αἵματος, 
that is, ‘‘/nstead of the sacrifice which was by blood He hath ap- 
pointed the reasonable and unbloody and mystic one of His body and 
blood which is performed by symbols to represent the death of the 
Lord, 237, note; xat προσάγοντες αὐτῷ τὰς λογιχὰς χαὶ ἀναιμάχτους 
θυσίας διὰ ᾿]ησοῦ, τοῦ μεγάλου ᾿Αρχιερέως, that is, ‘‘ And offer to 
fTim the reasonable and unbloody sacrifices through Jesus, the 
Great High Priest,’’ 238, note; ἐγχειροῦντας σοι τὴν φυβερὰν ταύτην 
καὶ ἀναίμαχτον θυσίαν, ““ who undertake [to perform] this fearful 
and unbloody sacrifice to Thee,’ 238, note. 

ἀναλαμβάνων, taking, 64, note. 

ἀναληφθείς͵ taken up or adopted, 433, note. 

ἀνάληψιν͵ taking [of flesh\, ascension; 463, note 951. 

ἀναστάσεως, τῆς, of the resurrection; 156, note. 

ἀναφοράν, reference to, or relation to, 68, note; 69, note; ἀναφορᾷ, in the 
expression, τὴν παρὰ πάσης τῆς χτίσεως δέχεται προσχύνησιν, ὡς 
ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν dvagupa Θευῦ χαὶ 
ἐννοίᾳ πάσης αὐτῷ τῆς χτίσεως τὴν προσχύνησιν ἀπονεμούσης, that is, 
the mere human Nestorian Christ, a mere creature, according 
to a Nestorian Creed which was condemned by the Third 
Ecumenical Council, ‘‘ vececves bowing [that is, worship] from 
all the creation, as having the inseparable [external] con- 
Junction with the Divine Nature [of the Word], αἱ the creation 
giving him bowing [that is, worship] with reference to God and 
in consideration of God,’’ 337, note. That is, in effect, relative 
worship. 

ἄνδρα, man, husband; see μιᾶς and γεγονυῖα under μιᾶς, 

ἀνέλαβέ με, took me; 64, note; ἀνέλαβεν, took up, or adopted, 433, note. 

ἀνθρώπινα, in the expression, ὀνειδίξων Αὐτῷ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, he [ Nestorius ] 
makes the human things an insult to Him,; 408, text. The 
Greek context is found in note 716, page 416; ἀνθρώπινα, τά, 
the human things, 534; ἀνθρώπινον, τό, the humanity, 80, note. 


694 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ἀνθρωπολατρέω, 7 worship a Man, 635. 
ἀνθρωπολατρεία, the worship of a man, that is, the Nestorian worship 
of Christ’s humanity, condemned; Preface ii., xvii., xxiv., 
note “'f,’” πεῖ; XXVii., note; ἘΠ: mote; Is-g note 182; 
go, note. On page 87, note, Cyril says of Nestorius, χαὶ τὰ 
τῆς ἀνθρωπολατρείας ἐγχλήματα δεδιῶς, ἥλω γεγονὼς ἀνθρωπολάτρης : 
ἀνθρωπολατρεία, Man-Worship, that is, the Worship of a Man, 
103. Of course, the Church in condemning the Nestorian 
worship of Christ’s separate humanity, because tt 15. the worship 
of a Man, that ts, of a creature, has much more (a fortiori) 
condemned the worship of any lesser creature, be it the Vir- 
gin Mary, martyrs, other saints, angels or any other creature; 
for all admit that the ever-sinless humanity of Christ is the 
highest of all mere creatures. The most common words used 
by Cyril and Nestorius to denote the latter’s worship of 
Christ’s separate, mere humanity are προσχυνῶ, 7 bow, and 
προσχύνησις, bowing, which, as being the most common act of 
religious service, stands for them all, that is prayer, prostra- 
tion, etc., and λατρεύω, which is also used for them all; Cyril 
uses all those words for his own worship of God alone; 
dvOpwrokatpeta, worship of a Man, 127, note; 217, note 551; 218, 
note 563; 223, note; 256, note; 285, note; 318, note 641; 325, 
note 665; 334, note; 335, note; 354, note; 355, note; 459, note 
935. On page 364, note, Cyril writes that if we believed in 
Christ as a Man and not as God, “‘ the thing were worship of 
a Man and confessedly nothing else,’’ in Greek, ἀνϑρωπολατρεία 
τὸ χρῆμα, καὶ ἕτερον οὐδὲν ὁμολογουμένως. On page 459, note 935, 
we find ἀνϑρωπολατρείαν used in the following plea for relative 
worship of Christ’s humanity by Nestorius, θὕτω χαὶ τὸν xara 
σάρχα Χριστὸν ex τῆς πρὸς θεὸν Λόγον συναφείας θεὸν ὀνομάξομεν, 
φαινόμενον εἰδότες ὡς ἄνθρωπον. ἄχουσον τοῦ Παύλου ἀμφότερα 
χηρύττοντος" ‘FE ᾿Ιουδαίων, φησὶν, ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρχα, ὁ ὧν 
ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός" ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ἄνϑρωπον πρότερον, χαὶ τότε τῇ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ συναφείᾳ ϑεολυγεῖ τὸ φαινόμενον, ἵνα μηδεὶς ἀνϑρωπολατρείαν τὸν 
Χριστιανισμὸν ὑποπτεῦσῃ. In English that is, ‘‘So also we 
name the man who was anointed according to the flesh, God, 
because of his conjoinment with God, though we know that 
which appears as a man. Hear Paul proclaiming both 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 695 


[those] things: Of the Jews, says he, zs the Anointed One as it 
regards the flesh, Whois God over all. He confesses the Man 
first, and then calls that which appears God, by reason of its 
conjunction with God, in order that no one may suspect 
Christianity of serving a Man;”’ ἀνϑρωπολατρεία, Man- Worship; 
467, note 966; pages 519, 591, 598, 606, 609, 631; 635, thrice; 
639, 667, 669. Compare under χτισματυλατρεία, χτιστολάτρης, 
atownohatpéw and ἀνϑρωπολάτρης in this volume, and under 
those words and ἀνϑρωπολατρεία in the Judex to Greck Words 
and Greek Expressions in Vol I. of Nicaea. 

ἀνϑρωπολάτρης, a worshipper of a Man, xvi., 13; and on page 87, note, 
in the expression of Nestorius, οὔτω yap ἄν ἦμεν ἀνθρωπολάτραί 
xat νεχρολάτραι cageis; see under ἀνϑρωπολατρεία above; dF pwro- 
λάτρης in the following passage of Cyril to Nestorius: εἶτα πῶς 
προσχεχυνήχαμεν τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ αὐτῷ χάμῳει πᾶν γόνυ; πῶς δὲ χαὶ 
σέβειν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖς: χαίτοι δεδιὼς, ὡς ἔφης, τὸ ἀνϑρωπολάτρης εἶναι: 
δοχεῖν, 88, note. See also under προσχυνῶ and σέβω, and their 
derived forms; ἀνφρωπολάτρης, worshipper of a Man, in Nes- 
torius’ expression, χαὶ τότε τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ συναφείᾳ Θεολυγεῖ τὸ 
φαινόμενον" ἵνα μηδεὶς ἀνθρωπολάτρην τὸν Χριστιανὸν ὑποπτεύῃ, 80, 
note; ἀνθρωπολάτρας, Worshippers of a Man, 92, note, where 
Cyril brands Nestorius’ Man Worship as making Christians 
Man- Worshippers; ἀνθρωπολάτρης, worshipper of a man, 163, 
note 338; ἀνϑρωπολάτραι, worshippers of a man, 219, note 
565; ἀνθρωπολάζρης, worshipper of ἃ man, 224, note; ἀνθρω- 
πολάτρης, Man-worshipper; a disgraceful epithet applied to 
Nestorius, 467, note 966; 635. In the following in note 966, 
page 467, Nestorius professes that form of creature-worship 
which consists in applying to Christ’s mere humanity the 
name God, which can be given to no creature. It is anath- 
ematized in St. Cyril’s Anathema VIII., which is approved 
by the Third Ecumenical Council. It is condemned also in 
Cyril’s Longer Epistle on pages 221-223, all of which was ap- 
proved by the same Council. It is there termed ‘‘ A HoR- 
RIBLE THING TO SAY,’’ (page 221, text). I quote Nestorius’ 
language in note 966 on that theme: 08 xa@ ἑαυτὸ Θεὸς τὸ 
πλασθὲν ἀπὸ μήτρας" οὐ χαθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ θεὸς τὸ χτισθὲν ἐχ τοῦ Π]νεύματος" 


᾽ > \ \ \ \ Ν ΄ Ἢ v4 i) ~*~ Ψ > 
ob xaP ἑαυτὸ θεὸς τὸ ταφὲν ἐπὶ μνήματος" οὕτω yap ἂν ἤμην ἀνθρωπο- 


6096 Act I. of Ephesus. 


hatpat, xat vexpodatpat cagets, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδήπερ ἐν τῷ ληφϑέντι Beds, ex 
τοῦ λαβόντος 5 ληφϑεὶς ὡς τῷ λαβόντι συναφϑεὶς, συγχρηματίζξει θεός, 
that is, in English, ‘‘ That which was formed from a womb is 
not God by itself; that which was created by the Spirit is not 
God by itself; that which was buried in the tomb is not 
God by itself; for [if we had] so [᾿ id, and worshipped that 
Man as being himself God] we should have Leen plainly wor- 
SHIPPERS OF A MAN AND WORSHIPPERS OF A CORPSE. But 
precisely because God is in the Man taken, the Man taken is co- 
called God [with God the Word] from Him [the Word] Who 
hastaken him, inasmuch as that man is conjoined to Him[God 
the Word] Who has taken him; ἀνϑρωπολάτρης, Worshipper of 
aman, 548, 639. 

ἄνϑρωπον προσληφϑέντα, a Man taken, 440, note 806. θεοῦ μὲν ἐνανθρωπή- 
σαντος, ἀνϑρώπου δὲ ϑεωϑέντος, 441, note 819. See the English 
translation in the text there. 

ἀνϑρωπότης, humanity, in the following cases of it: ἀνϑρωπότητος, of 
humanity, in this case rendered, ‘‘ 22 the humanity,’ 458, note 
930; τὴν ἀνϑρωπότητα, the humanity, 474, note 1007, twice. 

᾿Ανϑρωποτόχος, Bringer-Forth of a Man, 200, note. 

ἀνϑρωποφαγία, Eating a man, that is, Cannibalism, 111., Xvi., xXVi., 
xlii., note; xlili., note; 40, note; 107, note; ΤΟΣ, mote τ 
227, NOG; twice; 251, note; 267, note; 274, note and subnote 
ΚΡ 275, note; 276, note; 285, note;. 286; nete, ἐναργὴς 
ἀνϑωποφαγία, plain eating of a man, that is, plain cannibalism, 
262, note; 287, note; 306, note. On page 408, note, Nestor- 
ius, speaking of the Jews being scandalized because Christ 
said, ‘‘ Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink Fits 
blood ye have no life in youxselves’’ [John vi., 53], writes: οὖχ 
ἤνεγχαν τὸ τῶν λεγομένων ὑφηλὸν of ἀχούσαντες, ἐνόμιζον ὑπὸ ἀμαϑίας: 
ἀνϑρωποφαγίαν εἰσάγειν, In English this is: ‘‘ Those who heard 
endured not the loftiness of the thingssaid. Owing to their ig- 
norance they supposed that He was bringing in CANNIBALISM.” 
St. Cyril of Alexandria at once replies, ἴτα πῶς τὸ χρῆμά ἐστιν οὐχ 
ἐναργὴς avi pwrogayta; τίνα δὲ τρόπον ὑψηλὸν ἔτι τὸ μυστήριον, etc.; 
that is, ‘‘ And how is the thing not PLAIN CANNIBALISM, and 
in what way is the Mystery yet lofty,’’ εἴς., page 408, note; 
ἀνϑρωποφαγία, Hating a man, that is, Cannibalism, 488, note; 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and k:xpressions. 697 


576; 596, twice; 597, 598, 609, 613, 622, 629, 631, 642, 667, 
669, 672. 

ἀντίτυπα, antitypes, the Eucharistic, 280, note. 

ἀξιοῦμεν, we will deem it an honor, 46, note. 

ἀπαγορεύων, forbids, 633. 

ἀπαϑές, unsuffering, 76, note 175. 

᾿Δπαϑής, Non-Suffering, 278, note. 

ἀπέστειλε, sent, 474; note 1007, five times. 

ἀπυγεγόνασι, dead, departed, 42. 

azutéwow, detfication, 80, note; 81, note. 

τῇ Axootacta, ‘‘to the Apostasy,’ that is, Nestorianism, 224, note, 
and 257, note; τῷ τῆς “Azoatactas Συνεδρίῳ, ‘‘ to the Sanhedrim 
for “τὲ. Council’’] of the Apostasy,’ that is, to John of 
Antioch’s Nestorian Conventicle at Ephesus, 224, note; 257, 
note; τὸ τῆς ἀποστασίας συνέδριον, the Council of the Apostasy, 
257, note. 

ἀποστατέω, the verb to afostatize; forms of: ἀποστατήσασιν and ἀποσ- 
τατήσαιεν, Apostates, that is, to Nestorianism, 225, note 580, 
and 257, note; ἀποστατήσας, apostatizing, 257, note. 

ἀπόστολον, Messenger, Apostle, 363, note 682; 373, note. 

ἀποτασσόμενος, reject, denounce, 167, note 352. 

ἀπώλειαν, ruin, destruction, said of Nestorian heresy; 173, note 376. 

ἅρπαγα, ravener, applied to Nestorius; 189, note 458. 

ἄρτος, leavened bread, 231, note. See ἄξυμα; and see under both 
words in the Greek Index to Vol. I. of Vicaea. 

ἀρχετύπῳ, with the archetype, 282, note; Christ’s body is meant; ἀρχέτυ- 
πον, τὸ, the archetype, Christ’s body, 283, note; Theodoret the 
Nestorian, unorthodox in other things, is Orthodox in teaching 
that Christ’s body is ‘‘ the archetype’’ and ‘‘ the reality,’”’ and 
that the bread and wine are its ‘‘ symbols’’ and ‘‘ antitypes,”’ 
and that the bread is ‘‘ the tyfe’’ and the ‘‘zmage’’ of the 
body, 279, 280. See ἀντίτυπα, and ““σύμβολον, the Eucharistic 
Symbol,’ and τύπον, and εἰχόνα, in this Index. 

ἀρχιεπισχόπου, chief Overseer, chief Bishop, 136, note; 141, note; 144, 
note. In all those instances it is used of Cyril of Alexandria 
in a complimentary sense. 


698 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ἀρχιερεύς, High Priest, 313, note 619; 363, note 682; 373, note; 
παθητὸν ἀρχιερέα, ‘a passible High Priest,’’ 470, text, and note 
990, end. 

ἀρχιεροσύνη, High Priesthood, used of the Episcopate, note 85, page 34; 
see ἱεράτευμα and ἱερεύς, 

ἀσέβειαν͵ zmprety, 183, note 427. 

ἀσπασμόν, salutation, 337, note. 

ἀστασίαστον, unfacizous, 11, note 13. 

ἀσύγχυτως, without mixture, 278, note. 

ἀσώματον, without a body, 76, note 175. 

aowpatws, bodilessly, 431, note. 

“Atpertos, the Unchangeable, 278, note. 

αὐθεντίας, of authority, 466, note 963. 

ἀχώρητον, boundless, said of God; 445, note 830. 


B 


Baevtivos, Valentinus,; see ὁμοούσιον and σῶμα, 

βαπτίσματος, dipping, in the expression ὠμώμοχεν ἀσυνήθως, xata τοῦ 
ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, xat τῶν σεπτῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ οστηρίων; 1x xviii., 
note ‘‘a.’’ See the English translation there. 

βιβλία, books, 418, note 723. 

βιβλια τῶν ἐξηγήσεων αὐτοῦ, 31, note 63. The English translation is in 
te text there: 

βλασφημίαν, in the expression, τὴν Δεστορίου βλασφημίαν, xxv., note 
‘“ Rk,’ ταῖς παρὰ σοῦ γενομέναις χατ᾽ αὐτοῦ dvognptats, ** the blas- 
phemies contrived by thee against Him’’ [Christ]; Cyril’s 
rebuke to Nestorius for his errors against Christ, that is, for 
his denial of the Inman, for his Man-Worship, etc., 209, notes 


525, 526. 
βοᾷ, shouts forth, 477, note 1015. 


1" 


γαλαχτοτροφίαν, nourishing by milk, 4το, text. The Greek context is 
found in note 716, page 416. 

γαληνότητι, Serenity, 12, note 14. 

yewiw, 7 beget, 7 bring forth, the following forms from this verb are 
found in this volume: γεννᾶσθαι, to be born, 457, note g1Q; γεννηθέν, 
born, conceived, begotten, 454, note 910, several times; note 911; 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 699 


455, notes 911, 913; 457, note 919; γεννηθέντα, born, 433, note 
764; γεννηθέντα, born, 456, notes 915, 916, and 919; 457, note οἵο; 
ἐγεννήθη, was born, 453, note 899; see under Δεστόριος, 454, note 
QII; 457, note 919; γεννηθῆναι, was born, 453, note 902. See 
Δεστόριος, γεννωμένῳ, τῷ, with that thing which ἐς born, 457, note 
919. 

Of the noun γέννησις, birth, the following cases are found: γεννήσεως, 
birth, in the expression, τῆς ἀϊδίου γεννήσεως the eternal birth, 
436; γεννήσεως used of Christ’s birth in flesh, 157, note 308; 
δευτέρας γεννήσεως, denied by Nestorius, 158, note 312; 161, 
note 317; 163, note 334; 457, note 920; γέννησιν τὴν ἐχ παρθένου, 
the birth out of a virgin,4to, text. The Greek of the context 
isin note 716, page 416; γέννησιν, 458, note 923; 458, note 
930. 

γένος, τό, the race, in the expression of Eutherius of Tyana, the Nes- 
torian, against the opposition of the Orthodox to the Nestor- 
ian worship of Christ's humanity, xat χωλύοντες μὲν τὸ γένος 
σεμνύνεσθαι; 126, subnote ‘‘a.”’ 

γένος éxhextov, a chosen race, quoted from I. Peter ii., 9. 

γίνομαι, to become, to be made, to be, forms of: ἐγενόμεθα, see ἐν below; 
γενηϑέν, made, 454, notes 910, 911; 456, notes 918, 919; 457, 
note gI9g. 

γράμμα, Yetov, divine letter, 8; γράμματα, letters, 197, note 502. 

yovatxos, woman, wife; see under pas, γινόμενον ex γυναιχός, made out 
of a woman, 436, note 789, and 451, note 888, and 458, notes 


927, 929. 


δέχομαι, to recetuve; see ἐδεξάμεϑα. 

διαλαβεῖν, to define, 42, note 105. 

διδασχαλία, teaching, see σύμβολον. 

διέποντος Ἔ * * τὸν τόπον, filled the place, 22, note 24. 

ἐσπόξεε Ἔ * *%* τοῦ naytds, is Master of every man, 220, note 571. 

Δεσπότης, Master, Lord; the following forms of it are found in this 
volume: δεσποτῶν ἡμῶν͵ our Masters, in the expression, μετὰ 
τὴν ὑπατείαν τῶν Δεσπυτῶν ἡμῶν Ohaviov Ozodoctov, χ, τ, 2., το, note; 

’ 


41, note; Δεσπότην, in the expression, ‘‘ Δεσπότην ᾽᾽ ὀνομάξουσιν 


700 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ἑαυτοῖς Kwvaraytiwy, 20, note; δεσπότην, Master, 219, note 567; 
220, notes 569, 573; and 328, note 671. 

διηνεχῇ, continual or perpetual, 464, note 953. 

διμηναῖον * * * Gedy, a two months old God, 412, text, and note 
716, page 416, where the Greek and its context are found. It 
is a Nestorian blasphemy. 

διοιχήσεως, of the Diocese, 413, note 702. 

δόγμα, in the expression εἰς δόγμα, on dogma, 549. 

dvéalw, 7 glorify; see συνδοξάξω and συμπροσχυνέω in this Index. 
Δοξάξω, I think, 146, note; dc&alwy, think, note 262, page 
148; δοξάξων͵ glorifying, honoring, 466, note 961. 

δόξαν, opinions or sentiments, 129, note. 

δουλεία, slavery, 406, note; see λατρεία; compare in the General Index 
under Dulia, Latreia, and Hyperdulia. 

δούλου, slave, servant, 445, note 835. 

dpaxwy, 6, the dragon, said of the Nestorian, Andrew of Samosata, 
1109, ΠΟΐβ. 


Ε 


ἐδεξάμεθα, we accepted or received, 46, note. 

εἰδώλοις, tmages, 627. 

εἰδωλολάτραι, image-worshippers, 76, note, and page 627. 

εἰχών, image, εἰχόνα, τὴν, the tmage, the bread of the Lord’s Supper, 
282; cixdva, tmage; see under σέβω, and 83, note; εἰχόνος, 
image, in the expression, “at xat’ ἰσότητα βασιλιχῆς etxdvos, εἰς 
πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου προσχυνεῖσθαι, 111, note; the expression 
is that of the heresiarch Theodore of Mopsuestia, and in con- 
demning it and him the Fifth Ecumenical Council, following 
the mind and sense of the whole Church in the Third, antici- 
patively condemned the relative image-worship of the idol- 
atrous conventicle of Nicaea of A. D. 787, which is called 
falsely by image-worshippers an Ecumenical Synod; 580, 581, 
627, twice. Nestorius uses εἰχών like Theodore, 83, note. 

éx, out of, in the expressions, ἐγὼ yap ἐχ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλϑον, [came out of 
God; and ἐξῆλθον ἐχ τοῦ Πατρός, 7 came out of the Father; and 
γενόμενον ἐχ yuvatxds, made out of a woman, notes 165, 166, page 
73; and 74, note 169; ἐχ yuvatxds, out of a woman, 74, note 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 01 


169, and Maptas ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήϑη “Inoods, Mary, out of whom was 
born Jesus,73, note, and 74, note. 

ἐξ αὐτῆς μήτρας ἑνωϑείς, united [to flesh] zz the womb itself, literally, 
‘* from the womb ztself,’’ 74, note 172. 

ἐχδεδομένῃ, having given forth, 146, note. 

ἐχϑεμένη, having set forth, 146, notes, twice. 

τὴν "Exdeow τῆς Πίστεως, the Exposition or Statement of the Faith, the 
Nicene Creed, 130, note; 170, note 364, where it 15 called τῇ 
᾿Εχϑέσει τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Nixata, ‘‘ the Exposition of the 
holy Fathers who met at Nicaea.’’ 

ἐχπορεύεται, ‘‘ goeth out,’’ 317, note. 

ἐλάχιστος, ἐπίσχοπος, etc., ‘‘ the least, Bishop of,’’ etc., 492, note 1074. 

᾿βμμανουήλ, τόν, ‘‘ the God with us,’’? that is, God the Word, 320, 
note 656. 

ἐμφερέσϑωσαν τῇ πίστει τῶν Χριστιανῶν πεπραγμένων, 449, note 879, where 
see the English translation and context. 

ἐπιστολὴ [of Capreolus of Carthage] * * * ἐμφερέσϑω τῇ πίστει τῶν 
ὑπομνημάτων, [Cyril of Alexandria said,] ‘‘ Let the Epistle 
* ok * be inserted into the Records [to show] their good 
fatth,’’ 486, note 1040. 

᾿ ἐν ἑτέρῳ, in another, or with another, 332, note 679. 

ἐν τῇ οἰχίᾳ, in the expression ἐγενόμεθα ἐν τῇ τούτου οἰχία, 46, note, 
where and in the text see the English. 

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, in the name or at the name, 110, note. 

ἐνανϑρωπήσαντος, having pul on a Man, 441, note 819. 

ἐνανθρωπήσεως, τῆς, of the Inman, 156, note 301; 157, note 303; used 
by Nestorius to teach, not Cyril’s doctrine of God the Word’s 
Substance being in a Man, but his own heresy that God the 
Word indwelt that Man by His Spirit only as he did the 
prophets, 157, note 308; see remarks there; 458, notes 922 
and 931. 

ἐνεργῆς, active or energetic or tnworking, 434, note 772. 

ἐνηργῆσϑαι, ‘‘ was operated on’’ or ‘‘ was tnworked,’’ 329, note 673. 

ἐνοίχησιν, ind.welling, 66, note; see also under σχετιχήν, relative; evotxn- 
σιν, 66, note, at the foot of the page, and page 637; see 
χατοίχησιν, indwelling. 

ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, of [but] ove husband, 14. 

ἐξηγήσεων, Nestorius’ ‘‘ Hxposztions,’’ 31, note 63. 


702 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ἐνωθεὶς χατὰ φύσιν, united as respects [His] Nature, 217, note 558. 

ἐνώσας, having united, 74, note. 

ἕνωσιν, unzon, in the expression a0 ἕνωσιν φυσιχήν, by Nature Uuion, 
65, note; 66, note; τῇ xa? ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσει, in the Substance 
Union, 88, note; see ὑπόστασιν in this Index, and éx: τὴν χαθ᾽ 
ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, the Substance Union, 128, note 184; ἕνωσιν 
φυσιχήν, Nature Union, 218, note 562; ἕνωσιν, τήν, the Union, 
twice on page 344, note; ἑνώσει, by union, 432, note. 
There the heresy of holding that Christ’s body has been 
made divine by its union with the Uncreated God is con- 
demned. That was the heresy of some Apollinarians and of 
the Monophysites. 

ἔξαρχον, τόν, τῆς διοικήσεως, Exarch of the Diocese, 413, note 702. 

ἐξοθέν, external; see under συνάφεια, 

ἐπιγραφομένους, in the expression, τούς ἐπιγραφομένους τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
ὄνομα, 201, note 503. 

ἐπίσχοπος, Overseer, Bishop, 136, note. Theodore, Bishop of Gadara 
in the Second Palestine, subscribes by the deacon Aetherius; 
who after that adds, ‘‘ 7, Aetherius, a deacon, have subscribed 
at his command, because he is unable, or does not write,’’ 
Aivéptos διάχονος ὑπέγραφα, ἐπιτραπεὶς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀδυνάτου ὄντος, ἢ 
μὴ γράφοντος, 503, note 1142. 

᾿Επιφάνεια, the showing, 417, note 720. 

ἀσϑίομεν, we eat [in the Eucharist], 474, note 1007. 

ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ, one in another, and ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ, one with another, 332, 
note 679. 

eddoxta, good pleasure, 71, note. 

εὐδόχησα, Tam well pleased, 71, note. 

εὐλαβεστάτῳ, most reverent or most religious, 208, note 521. 

εὐλογήσας, having blessed, 272, subnote ‘‘f.”’ 

Εὐλογία, the Blessing, the Lora’s Supper, thrice, 231, note; 272, sub- 
note; ταῖς μυστιχαῖς εὐλογίαις, to the mystic blessings, to the 
secret blessings, that is, the Eucharist, and the blessings at- 
tendant thereupon, 231, note. 

εὐλυγοῦμεν, we bless, 231, note. 

ἐφ᾽ vdyhov; xxiv. nore Ge 

εὐχαριστήσας, having given thanks, 230, note; 231, note; 272, subnote. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 703: 
Im ὁὃϑ π τρ ὑἰυυ δον 


εὐχαριστία, Thanksgiving, Eucharist; Preface, iii.; 162, note 386: 220; 
note, thrice; 237; see the Greek of the long passage on the 
Eucharist in Cyril’s Ecumenically approved long Epistle, 
241, note; 242, note; 248, note; 271, note; 617. See also the 
very important Blasphemy 18 of Nestorius in note 1007 on 
page 474, and indeed the whole of that note, which contains 
facts on that Greek which should be known. ‘The translation 
of that Blasphemy is on pages 472, 473 and 474, text. ‘its 
vast importance consists in the fact that it contains a profes- 
sion of Nestorius’ Cannibalism, which was condemned by the 
Third Ecumenical Council, and made one ground for his con- 
viction of heresy and for his deposition therefor. ‘That verdict, 
of course, amounts by necessary implication to a condemna- 
tion of all Man-Eating heresies, be they of any of the Transub- 
stantiation kinds or of any of the Consubstantiation kinds, and 
to the approval of the Anti-Cannibalistie dotrine which is 
now that of the Universal Church. Of course the advocates 
of the Cannibalistic heresies will try and twist out of their 
guilt, but every such attempt lands them, after all their wz/- 
iplying words without knowledge (Job xxxv., 16), in what 
really amounts to a denial of the reality and verity of Christ’s 
body and blood, that is, in what is practically Docetism. See 
further under Lucharist, especially page 613, and Cy7il of 
Alexandria, Christ, ete. 


On page 478, note 1020, Nestorius says: 0068 τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου 
χαταγγέλλομεν θάνατον, τὸ Δεσποτιχὸν αἷμά τε χαὶ σῶμα σιτούμενοι, 
“‘nor do we tell on the death of God the Word when we Seed on 
the Master's blood and body.’’ See that note. 


The Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s denial of the real presence of 
Christ’s flesh and blood in the Eucharist, and his statement 
of the Exergy doctrine instead, is found on page 310, note. 
Compare his whole teaching against the real presence and 
against the worship of Christ’s Divinity or humanity in the 
rite, and against the Cannibal view there, and the true read- 
ing of the Greek there, with the Romish corrupt Transub- 
Sstantiation, and the false Latin translation of Kenrick there. 
See also the context. Cyril’s teaching is that approved by 


704 Act I. of Ephesus. 


the whole Church at Ephesus, and to dispute against it is to 
dispute against Ephesus, and the Holy Ghost. 


Additional remark on this place: Since exposing in the subnote on 
pages 308-311 above the adulteration of a passage of St. Cyril 
on the Eucharist by some Romanist, I have found the follow- 
ing on that passage on page 177 of the work on Real Presence, 
by P. E. Pusey, the Consubstantiationist opposer of the 
Eucharistic doctrine of Ephesus, who speaks of the difficulty 
of reconciling Cyril’s expression exergy with the error of 
Transubstantiation, and adds, ‘‘ The difference of the ex- 
pression was felt by Aquinas, who, both in this passage of S. 
Cyriland in one borrowed from it by Theophylact, substituted 
the word verity (veritatem) for ‘ efficacy.’’’ Pusey here ren- 
ders the Greek ἐνέργειαν, energy, by efficacy.. This exposure 
of Aquinas’ change of the text and sense of St. Cyril should 
be a warning to all not to trust that notorious partisan of 
idolatry, whom the Third Counciland the Fifth anticipatively 
anathematized. ‘The Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, those 
‘‘ inventors of evil things,’’ as one calls them, were all opposed 
in matters of creature-worship tothe VI. Ecumenical Synods, 
which few or none of them knew well, and most or all of 
them to their doctrine on the Eucharist, and built often on 
spurious or interpolated materials. They are under the an- 
athemas of the VI. Synods therefore, and must never be 
quoted as Orthodox. I would add that Pusey, in the context 
of the passage just cited from him, tries to make out that his 
Eucharistic idolatrous heresy and St. Cyril’s doctrine are 
identical, but his attempt is false and vain. Indeed, he never 
understood St. Cyril’s Eucharistic teaching, and got farther 
away from it than even Nestorius’ chief champion, Theodoret 
himself. For, whereas Theodoret held to the Consubstantiation 
of one nature only of Christ, the humanity, with the bread 
and wine, and that only it is to be worshipped and then to be 
eaten in the Eucharist, Pusey went further and held to the 
Consubstantiation of both His Natures with the bread and 
wine, and that both are to be worshipped there, and then 
after that that both are to be eaten there. Cyril held, as is 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 05 


--- - - 


shown in note 606 above, that neither is present there, 
neither is to be worshipped there, and neither is eaten there. 

The following passages from Theodoret, Nestorius’ champion and 
fellow heretic, show that he, like Nestorius and St. Cyril 
and the Universal Church, held that the Substance of Christ’s 
Divinity is not in the Eucharist; and that, unlike Cyril and 
the Universal Church, he held that Christ’s body and blood 
are in the Eucharist; and that he worshipped them as Christ’s 
body and blood, and hence was guilty of what St. Cyril calls 
the Worshtp of a Man (ἀνϑρωπολατρεία); and that he held that 
the flesh of Christ is eaten, and the blood of Christ is drunk 
in the rite, and hence he was guilty of what St. Cyril brands 
as ἀνθρωποφαγία, that is, as the eating a man, that is, as Can- 
nibalism. 

It should be added by way of explanation that Theodoret’s Orthodox 
in the following Dialogues is Orthodox not in the sense of St. 
Cyril and of the Third Ecumenical Council, but in his own 
Nestorian sense; for he bitterly and persistently and long 
opposed the Orthodox Cyril, and thai Council of the whole 
Church, which condemned his errors on the Inman and on the 
Eucharist, and surrendered only when he had to lose his see 
permanently or doso. It is not clear that at any time he 
sincerely received the decisions of the Third Council and from 
his heart renounced his own heresies and laid aside his enmity 
to Cyril on account of his Orthodoxy. 

His Zvanistes represents an Apollinarian or a Kutychian, who held 
the heresy of but one nature of Christ, and that the Divinity 
only. Theodoret is arguing below, after the Nestorian fashion, 
that He must be man only, for though, like Nestorius, he ad- 
mitted two Natures of Christ, nevertheless he did not believe 
in the Incarnation of God the Word in His merely human 
Christ; so that, like his opponent, he also was a One-Nature- 
ite, only that whereas his opponent held to a Christ who had 
no Adamic humanity at all, but was God alone, all his hu- 
manity having been transubstantiated into God the Word’s 
Divinity, or being a peculiar body, eternal, and not at all 
from Adam, which had been changed into God; Theodo‘et, 
on the contrary, held that Christ had humanity only, that is, 


706 Act I. of Ephesus. 


that He isa mere Man, inspired, indeed, like the prophets, 
but not indwelt by the real Substance of God the Word’s 
Divinity. The Orthodox differed from both in admitting 
the Incarnation and the two Natures of Christ, but denied 
that either of His natures is present substancely in the 
Eucharist. 

Passage 1 [on the Eucharist] from Theodoret the Nestorian: OP@. | Or- 
thodox, that is, the Nestorian Theodoret] : Φιλαλήϑως εἴρηκας. 
Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος τὸ σύμβολον λαβὼν, οὐχ etze* Τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ θεότης 
μου" adda, Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου" καὶ πάλιν' Todté ἐστι τὸ αἷμά 
μου" καὶ ἑτέρωϑι, Ὁ δὲ ἄρτος ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν, ἥν ἐγὼ. 
δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ χόσμου ζωῆς. ᾽ΕΡΑΝ, [the Apollinarian or 
Eutychian]: ᾿4ληϑῆ ταῦτα, θεῖα γάρ ἐστι λόγια; that is, in 
English, ‘‘OrTHODOx’”’ [that is, the Nestorian Theodoret], 
‘‘Thou hast spoken as a lover of truth. For the Lord, when 
he took the symbol, did not say, ‘ 7125 7s my Divinity,’ but, 
‘ This is my body, and again [He said], ‘ 7115 7s my blood.’ 
And in another place [He said], ‘And the bread which I 
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ 
ERANISTES”’ [the Apollinarian or Eutychian]: ‘‘ These things 
are true, for they are utterances of God. OrtTHopox: If 
then they are true, the Lord certainly had a body,”’ 279, note. 

Here then, what is not always noticed, Theodoret, in accordance 
with Cyril’s, the Church’s, and Nestorius’ own view, holds 
that the Substance of Christ’s Divinity, is not in the Euchar- 
ist; but, against Cyril and the Universal Church, holds that 
the substance of His flesh and the substance of His blood are. 
And he cannot be understood to teach that Christ’s words, 
This is my body, this ts my blood, are to be taken in a figurative 
sense only. For passages which here follow show that where- 
as Theodoret’s Apollinarian or Monophysite opponent held 
that after the prayer of consecration the bread and wine are 
so thoroughly changed that they may no longer be termed 
bread and wine, but God only, a view which comes, so far, 
near Transubstantiation, Theodoret, on the other hand, held 
that the bread and wine remain unchanged and may still be 
called dread and wine. See Passage 3 below. And Theo- 
doret’s own words below show that he held also that Christ’s 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 707 

I i ρον τον 
words above teach that His real body and His real blood also 
are in the Eucharist and are actually eaten and drunk there, 
that is, he held to what St. Cyril says his Master, Nestorius, 
did, that is, Cannzbalism (see under Cannibalism in the Gen- 
eral Index to this work, and under avipwrogayta in the Greek 
Index). Yet, as we shall soon see, Theodoret held that the 
bread and wine remain in their own substances, but that the 
real body and blood of Christ are consubstantiated with them. 

Passage 2 0n the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. ‘OPO: Et 
τοίνυν TOD ὄντως σώματος ἀντίτυπα ἐστι τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια, σῶμα ἄρα 
ἐστὶ χαὶ νῦν τοῦ Δεσπότου τὸ σῶμα, οὐχ εἰς θεότητος φύσιν μεταβληθὲν, 
ἀλλὰ θείας δόξης ἀναπλασθέν. In English this is, ‘‘ If, therefore, 
[or better, ‘‘ Szzce, therefore,’’| the Mysteries of God are anti- 
types of the true body, then the Lord’s body is a body still, 
NOT CHANGED INTO THE NATURE OF THE ΠΙΨΊΝΙΤΥ, but 
is filled with the Divine glory,”’ 279, 280, note, 

Passage on the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. OPO04A: 
“Βάλως ats ὕφηνες dpxvow, Οὐδὲ γὰρ, μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν, τὰ μυστιχὰ 
σύμβολα τῆς οἰχείας φύσεως, Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας χαὶ 
τοῦ σχήματος χαὶ τοῦ εἴδους" χαὶ ὁρατά ἐστι χαὶ anta, οἷα χαὶ πρότερον 
ἦν" νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο" χαὶ πιστεύεται, χαὶ προσχυνεῖται, ὡς ἐχεῖνα 
ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται, Παράθες τοίνυν τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ τὴν εἰχόνα, χαὶ 
ὄφει τὴν ὁμοιότητα, Χρὴ γὰρ ἐοιχέναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸν τύπον. In 
English this is, ‘‘Thou art caught in the nets which thou 
hast woven. For THE MYSTIC SYMBOLS DO NOT PASS OUT OF 
THEIR OWN NATURE AFTER THE CONSECRATION. FoR THEY 
REMAIN IN THEIR FORMER SUBSTANCE AND SHAPE AND 
APPEARANCE; and they are visible and are touchable and 
such as they were before. But they are thought of as those 
things which they have become, and are believed [to be]. 
And THEY ARE BOWED ἸῸ 85 being those things which [they] 
are believed [to be]. Compare, therefore, the image with the 
archetype, and thou wilt see the likeness. For it is ne- 
cessary that the type should be like the reality. For that body 
has its former appearance and shape and circumference, and, 
in a word, THE SUBSTANCE of the body. For it became im- 
mortal after the resurrection, and incorruptible, and was 
deemed worthy of the seat at the right hand [of the Father] 


708 Act I. of Ephesus. 


-_ 


AND IS WORSHIPPED BY ALL THE CREATION as being entitled 
the body of the Lord of Nature.’’ 


Here then we have, 1, the Consubstantiation view, the bread and 
wine remaining bread and wine, but in the rite the real body 
of Christ being put 27, uzder or with the bread, and the blood 
being put zz, under or with the wine; and 2, we have Nestor- 
ian Man-Worship, that is, the worship of Christ’s body at the 
right hand of the Father, and in the Eucharist also. 


Passage 4 of Theodoret the Nestorian on the Eucharist. In this Theo- 
doret teaches that the nature of the elements is unchanged in 
the rite: οὗτος τὰ ὁρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος προσ- 
εγορέᾳ τετίμηχεν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν γάριν τῇ φύσει 
προστεϑειχώς; that is, ‘‘ He [Christ] honored the visible symbols 
with the appellation the body and blood, not changing their 
nature but adding their grace to their nature,’’ [or, ‘‘ but 
adding grace to the nature,’’] 282, note. 


Passage 5 on the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. ‘‘ KRAN- 
ISTES: A body then hath obtained salvation for us. ORTHO- 
Dox: The body of no mere man, but of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Sole-Born Son of God. But if this appear to thee 
small and worthless, how dost thou suppose that ITS TYPE IS 
WORSHIPABLE and saving. But since THE TYPE OF IT IS TO 
BE BOWED TO [προσχυνητός͵ that is, ‘IS AN OBJECT OF WOR- 
SHIP ’] and ts venerable, how can the archetype itself be des- 
picable and mean ῥ᾽" 

The Greek is found on page 283 above, note; I quote only the most 
pertinent part here: Et δὲ τοῦτό cot νομίξεται μιχρόν te xat εὐτελὲς, 
πῶς τὸν τούτου γε τύπον σεπτὸν ἡγῇ χαὶ σωτήριον; οὗ δὲ 6 τύπος προσ- 
χυνητὸς χαὶ σεβάσμιος, πῶς αὐτὸ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον εὐχαταφρόνητον καὶ 
σμιχρὸν. 

Here the ‘‘ tyfe,’’ the bread, ‘‘zs worshippable,’’ and “‘ zs to be bowed 
to,’’ that is, is az object of worship, but as the body is wth, zn, 
or under that type, it, of course, is a fortiori to be bowed to. 

Passage 6 of Theodoret the Nestorian on the Eucharist. In the fol- 
lowing passage Theodoret differs from every Transubstantia- 
tionist and from every two-Nature Consubstantiationist in 
denying that Christ’s words of institution of the Eucharist 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 109 
Eee cea Pe, MO OL NG Lg CE NE 


mean two Natures of Christ, and in asserting that He meant 
one only, and that the humanity: 

““HRANISTES: * * * When He had taken and had broken, 
and had distributed to the disciples, He said, ‘ Zhds zs my 
body which is given for you,’ or ‘ broken,’ according to the 
Apostle; and again, ‘ 7hs ἐς my blood of the New T. estament, 
which ts shed for many.’ 

ORTHODOX: Therefore He did not mention His Divinrry when He 
showed the type of His suffering? (Greek, 0p0. Οὐ τοίνυν 
ϑεότητος ἐμνημόνευσε, τοῦ πάθους τὸν τύπον ἐπιδειχνύς). 

ERANISTES: Certainly not, (Greek, 00 δῆτα) 

ORTHODOX: But He did indeed mention His Jody and blood, (Greek, 
᾿Αλλὰ σώματός γε χαὶ αἵματος). 

ERANISTES: True, (Greek, ἀληθές). 

ORTHODOX: Was a body therefore nailed to the cross ὃ 

ERANISTES: It so appears.”’ 

And so Theodoret’s Orthodox, that is, his own Nestorian self, holds 
that he has proven that his Eutychian or Apollinarian ΟΡΡο- 
nent is wrong in denying that Christ had a human body, and 
in affirming that He had but one Nature and that the Divine. 
Theodoret holds also that he has proven that Christ’s Divin- 
ity is not in the Eucharist, but only His humanity. ‘This, he 
means, accords with his own denial of the Incarnation and 
with his making Christ a mere man, and in worshipping His 
humanity in the Eucharist, and also at the right hand of the 
Father. That he denied the Inman is clear from his own 
language in the note on pages 63 to 68 of this work. See 
also under 7heodoret in the General Index to this work; and 
see on the Nestorian view subnote ‘‘a,’’ page 290 of this 
volume. 

Passage 7 on the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. Kav αὐτὸς 
δὲ 6 Κύριος οὐ τὴν ἀόρατον Φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα δώσειν ὑπέσχετο ὑπὲρ 
τῆς τοῦ χόσμου ζωῆς. * ἘΞ * Kat οὐδαμοῦ περὶ πάθους διαλεχθεὶς 
τῆς ἀπαθοῦς ἐμνήσθη ϑεότητος - In English with part of the con- 
text this is, ‘‘ Butthe Lord Himself promised to give, NoT His 
INVISIBLE NATURE, but His dody for the life of the world. 
For He saith, ‘ Zhe bread which T will give is my flesh, which 
7 will give for the life of the world. And when delivering the 


710 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Mysteries of God, He took the symbol and said, ‘7his zs my 
body which is given for you; or ‘broken,’ according to the 
Apostle. And NO WHERE IN DISCOURSING OF HIS SUFFER- 
ING DID HE MENTION HIS UNSUFFERING DIVINITY,’’ 284, 
note. Here we have again Theodoret’s implied denial of the 
real presence of the Substance of God the Word’s Divinity in 
the rite, and his doctrine of one-nature Consubstantiation, 
that is, the Consubstantiation of Christ’s body with the bread 
and of His blood with the wine. 

Theodoret the Nestorian terms Christ’s body τὸ ἀρχέτυπον the arche- 
type, and ἡ ἀλήθεια, the reality, and the ἄρτος, that is the dread, 
ὁ τύπος, the type, ἡ ὁμοιότης, the likeness, ἡ εἰκών, the zmage, and 
τὸ σύμβολον, the symbol of it; and he terms the bread and wine 
τὰ ἀντίτυπα, the antilypes, and τὰ σύμβολα, the symbols of Christ’s. 
body and blood; and he calls the Eucharistic rites τὰ μυστήρια, 
the Mysteries. 

He is not faulted by Cyril or the Third World Synod for such 
language, but for his one-nature real presence, worship of it 
in the Eucharist, and for the Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία, to use 
Cyril’s term for it) of eating it there. 

ἐφ᾽ ὑφηλοῦ, Ixxiv., note ‘‘ 0.’’ 


Z 


ζήσεται, shall live, 474, note 1007. 
ζξωοποιηϑείς, made alive, 419, note 732. 
ζωοποιόν (odpxa), life-giving ( flesh), 239, notes 602, 603, several times. 


H 


ἡλιχία, 7x age, or in stature, 470, note 984. 
Ηὐχόμην, 7 would, or 7 was wishing, or 7 could wish, or would that, or 
7 would pray, 483, note 1025. 


6 


ϑαυμαστῆς, admirable or wonderful, 155, note; θαυμαστῶν admirable or 
wonderful, 155, note. 

Yavpata, ta, the wonders, 147, note. 

ϑεηγόρων, τῶν, ‘‘ of those who have discoursed on God,’’ 255, note. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions, ‘11 


ϑεῖος, a ov, divine, used wickedly of Emperors, etc., 20, note; θεῖον, 
t6, the Divinity, 76, note 175; ϑεῖον γράμμα, 8, note 6, and page 
505, note B; τὸ ϑεῖον ἡμῶν στρατόπεδον, our divine court, page 
505, note B. Inthethird and fourth examples the Emperor’s 
Letter is termed dzvive, and in the fifth example their court 
is; all this blasphemously enough. 

ϑειότης͵ Divinity, ‘‘a title applied to Kings and Emperors,’’ 20, note. 

ϑέλημα, well, 71, note. 

ϑέλω, 7 will, and ἠϑέλησε, He wished, 70, note 

ϑεμέλιον, a foundation, 191, note 473. 

Θεοδώρου * * * Mogovectias, Theodore * * * of Mopsuestia, 
423, note. Compare vlodecias, 

Θεολατρεία, Worship of God, God- Worship, 90, note. 

ϑεολογεῖ τὸ φαινόμενον, ‘‘ calls that which appears God,’’ 459, note 935. 

ϑεοποιεῖσϑαι, to be made a god, in the expression, τὸ ϑεοποιεῖσϑαι σὺν 
αὐτῷ τὴν xttow, the creature to be made a god along with Him- 
self, 85, note. 

ϑεοποιΐας, making a god, 325, note 665. 

ϑεοποεπές, God-befitting, prerogative to God, 378, note, twice. 

Θεός, God, ‘‘ the boundless,’’ 445, note 830. θεοῦ μὲν ἐνανθρωπήσωντος, 
‘* God has put on a man,’’ 441, note 819. 

ϑεοσέβεια, God-Reveringness, God-Fearingness, 12, note 14; 35, note 
87; 58, note, a title. 

ϑεοσεβεῖς, worshippers of God, 76, note. 

Θεότητος, τῆς, of the Divinity, 83, note; 217, note 555; ϑεότητι, τῇ, 
with the Divinity, 633; τὴν θεότητα, the Divinity, that is, as 
is there explained, τὸν θεὸν Adyov, God the Word, 474, note 
1007. 

Θεοτόχος, that is, Bringer-Forth of God, vi., xx., xxi., notes ‘‘2,”’ 
‘‘m,’”? xxii., note “ἀν᾽ 161, text, and note. 317; 64, note. 
See Χριστοτόχος, Oeordxos, 121, note. θεοτόχον, 128, note 192; 
161, note 317; 168, note 353; 172, note 365; 184, note 438; 
200, note (see ἀνθρωποτόχος); 222, note; 318, note 641; 319, 
note 642; 320, note 657; 321, note 657; 420, notes 741, 742; 
τῆς θεοτόχου Maptas, Mary, the Bringer-Forth of God, 421, text; 
Θεοτόχος, Bringer-Forth of God, 534; 575, twice; 588, twice; 
599, 635, thrice; 636, thrice. 

Geogdvera, the God-showing, 417, note 720. 


712 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Θεοφάνια, the God-showing, 417, note 720. 

Θεοφιλής, beloved of God, 151, note 275. 

ϑεοφιλεστάτον, most beloved of God, 151, note 275; ϑεοφιλεστάτων͵ of the 
most dear to God, 154, note. 

Θεοφόρος, in the Nestorian expression, ϑεοφόρος ἄνθρωπος, an inspired 
Man, said by them of Christ, 92, note. See the long passage 
of Greek there, which is translated in the note on pages ΟἹ, 
92; 217, note 553; Pusey’s mistranslation of ϑεοφόρον ἄνϑρωπον, 
222, note, and 253, note; and 327, note 669, where ϑεοφόρον is 
four times referred to, and erroneous translations of it by P. 
E. Pusey, by Hammond and by a Latin translator. Cyril 
there writes, 00 γάρ τοι ϑεοφόρον εἶναί φαμεν ἄνϑρωπον ἀπλῶς, ἀλλὰ 
αὐτόχρημα χατὰ ἀλήϑειαν τὸν ἐχ θεοῦ Λόγον ἡνῶσϑαι σαρχί, etc., that 
is, For we indeed do not say merely that a man ts inspired, but 
that the Word Who came out of God has been united to flesh in 
fact and in truth; Pusey’s mistranslation of ϑεοφόρος again, 
472, note; 589. θεοφόρων πατέρων, of God-inspired Fathers, 
135, note; ϑεοφόρων; God-inspired, 145, note; 151, note. 

ϑέσει͵, by external relation, or by adoption, 422, note 758. See υἱοϑεσίας. 

θεωϑέντος, made godly, 442, note 819. 

ϑορύβους, uproars, tumulis, 11, note 11. 

ϑυρῶν χεχλεισμένων, ‘‘ the doors having been shut,’ 306, note; the refer- 
ence is to John xx., 19, 26. 

ϑυσία, sacrifice; see ἀναίμακτος, unbloody, and 231, note. 


I 


ἤδιον σῶμα, a peculiar body, or ‘‘an own body,’’ 268, note; ἰδία (cap), 
a peculiar flesh, 268, note; see σάρξ and σῶμα; ἴδιον, own, pecu- 
liar, 273, subnote ‘‘s,’’ ὅτι γέγονεν ἰδία τοῦ Λόγου, “" that τέ has 
been made an own flesh of the Word,” or ‘‘ a peculiar flesh of 
the Word,’’ 596. 

ἰδιότητας, properties, 163, note. 

ἴδωμεν, Let us 566, 474, note 1007. 

ἱεράτευμα, priesthood, that is hervhood, 39, not; see ἀρχιεροσύνη, High 
Priesthood. 

ἱερεύς, potest, that is herv, that is sacerd, 39, note; τοῖς ἱερεῦσι, the 
sacerds of God, 120, note 199; τοῦ δοχιμωτάτου ἱερέως, “" the most 
approved priest,’’ applied to Cyril of Alexandria, 181, note 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Lxpressions. 713 


412; so again 195, note 491; ἱερεῖ, Priest, applied to Nestorius, 
190, note 465; the word explained in note 491, pages 195, 196. 

ἱερουργῶν, performing the sacred act of, 313, note 620. 

ἱερωσύνης, ‘‘ of the Priesthood,’’ 316, note 622. 

Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Jesus Anointed, see Δεστόριος, 

ἰσότητι, equality, in the expression, οὔτε μὴν χοινὸν ἄνϑρωπον, ἰσότητι μόνῃ 
τῶν ἀξιωμάτων τετιμημένον, etc., 67, note; see the English trans- 
lation there. 

ἰσοτιμία, equality of honor, in the following expression, οὐ yap évot τὰς 
φύσεις ἡ ἰσοτιμία, 217, for equality of honor could not unite the 
natures, 217, note 560. 


K 


xa¥ ὑπόστασιν, according to Substance, see ὑπόστασιν. 

καϑαιρέσει, for deposition, 57, note. 

Καϑολικῇ ᾿Εχχλησίᾳ, in the Universal Church, 46, note; χαϑολιχῆς, Unt- 
versal, 134,note. See παράδοσις and πίστις; χαϑολιχή, Universal, 
IgI, note 475, twice, where the term and the differences be- 
tween the Greek and the Latin use of it are explained; τοῦ 
χαϑολιχοῦ ᾿Αττιχοῦ, the Catholic, that is, the Orthodox Atticus, 
194, note 487; χαϑολιχ * * ἘΠῚ αχέψεϊ; ‘by a Catholic,” 
that is, ‘‘dy ax Orthodox reflection,’’ 195, note 489; τῆς ἐν 
Levéa καϑολιχῆς ἐχχλησίας, ‘of the Universal Church in Senea,”’ 
495, note 1107. 

χαϑολιχῶς, Universally, Catholically, Orthodoxically, 191, note 475. 

xawvotntas, innovations, novelties, 182, notes 425, 420. 

xaxodoEtas, evil belief, in the unjust and abusive expression, used by 
Eutherius of Tana, the Nestorian, against the Orthodox, διῶ 
τῆς οἰχείας χαχοδοξίας, 125, where see the English of the context. 

χανών, rule, canon, 153, note 284; χανόνι, to the rule, to the canon, 48, 
note; χανόνας, in the expression, τοὺς χανόνας ἐχείνους οὕσπερ 
αὐτοὶ [the Fathers at Nicaea] ἐξέϑεντο, 142, note; χανόνας occurs 
thrice there; τοῖς χανόσι τῶν xata Nexatay, in the Canons of those 
at Nicaea, 153, note 284; xavdve, rule or norm, 431, note. 

χατὰ πάντα, in all things, 434, note 774. 

χατὰ παράθεσιν, by juxtaposition, 218, note 562. 

χαταγγέλοντες, telling on, explained in note 598, page 229. 

χαταγώχγιον, stopping place, 48, note 129. 


114 Act I. of Ephesus. 


χαταθέσθαι, to state, 46, note. 

χατεξετασθῆναι, to be examined into, 48, note. 

τὴν κατοίχησιν, the indwelling, 217, note 557. 

χεφαλή, in the expression, ἦν yap ἡ ὁδὸς χεφαλὴ μία, Ixxiii., note ‘‘ a.’’ 

χοινῇ φήφῳ, by a common vole, 38, note 94. 

χοινὸν ἄνϑρωπον, α common man, the Nestorians made Christ such, 
g2, note. 

xowwvia, Communion, 231, note. 

xowwvoy, colleague, 180, note 398, and χοινωνῶν in note 404. 

χοσμιχούς, worldly men, 11, note 10. 

χρότον, clapping, applause, 453, note 898. 

χτῆμα ἐς ἀεί, a possession forever, Ril. 

xti~w, 7 create, ἔχτισε, he created, 457, note 919. 

χτίσις, creature, in the following cases: χτίσιν, see ϑεοποιεῖσϑαι, and 
page 85, note; χτίσει, τῇ, to the creature, 92, note; χτέσιν, crea- 
ture, 432, note. | 

χτίσμα, creature, 457, note gIg. 

xtiopatokatpat, worshippers of a creature, 219, note 565. See ἀνϑρωπο- 
λατρεία in this Index, and the references there. 

χτισματολατρεία, worship of creatures, creature-worship, 18; 90, note; 
355, note. See the references under ἀνϑρωπολατρεία in this Index. 
χτισματολατρεία, creature-worship, that is, the worship of a crea- 
ture, or of creatures, 256, note; 628. 

χτιστολάτρης, worshipper of a creature, 628. See ἀνϑρωπολάτρης, and 
639. 

Κύριον, Lord, 20, note. Képov, Lord, Master; see under Neoréptos, 
477, notes IOIO, IOI2. 


A 


τοῦ λαβόντος, who has taken, 467, note 966; τῷ λαβόντι͵ zbid.,- Aaois, 
tots, the peoples, the congregations, 209, note 528. 

λατρεία, service, worship, 406, note; 628. See besides the references 

under δουλεία, See λογιχήν. 

λατρεύω, 7 serve, in the following forms: λελατρεύχαμεν, we have served, 
84, note; λατρεύειν, in the expression of Cyril on page 92, note, 
where he says that ‘‘ we [Christians] have refused as a blas- 
phemous thing to worship the creature.’’ See the Greek there. 
It is too long to be quoted in full again here. See alsoa very 


Index IV, Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 15 

πον I NY el 
important passage from Athanasius under προσχυνοῦμεν in this 
Index; λατρεύοντες, serving, quoted by Valentinus from Holy 
wee 431, note; λατρεύω, 7 serve, [ worship, 628. 

ληφθείς, 6, the Man taken, 467, note 966. 

"λογιχὴν ei: reasonable service, quoted from Romans xii., 4; page 
527. See λατρεία: 

Adyos, the Word, Valentinus, the Apollinarian, on Him and His 
worship, 431, note; λόγου, work or treatise, 435, note; Adyos, 6, 
see under ἀΐδιος; 74, note 169; Adyos, the Word, 216, note 551; 
6 * * * ἅγιος Beds ᾿Ιησοῦς, 6 * * * Aédyos, the * * * 
floly God Jesus, ste * * * Word, 371, note; on page 
371, note, 6 Adyos τὸ αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐξέγεεν αἷμα, the Word shed 
fits blood for us, 6 Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, the Word of God, 579. On 
page 416, note, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Adyou *F * * op Movoyeveds, the 
Word of God * * * the Soleborn,; 6 Λόγος ἐνδιάϑετος, the 
Word in and through the Father, 455, note 911; 457, note 
919; τὸν θεὸν Λόγον, God the Word, 474, note 1007; 6 Λόγος 
mpogoptxos, the Word borne forth out of the Father, 455, note 
QII; 457, note gI9g. 

λύσιν, solution, answer, 11, note 12. 


M 


μάγοι, Magians, 435, note 778. 

μᾶλλον͵ rather, on the contrary, 61, note 155. 

Mapras, see θεοτόχος, 

μαρτύριον, Martyry, \xxiv. 

μεγαλοπρεπεστάτου, most magnificent, 182, note 417. 

μεγαλώνυμον πόλιν, city of great name, 12, note 14. ‘The reference is to 
Constantinople. 

μεγέθη, magnitudes or depths, 445, note 829. 

μέϑεξιν σχετιχήν, relative participation, 283, note 563; 318, note eins 

μεϑίστησιν, changes, transfers, 270, note. 

μετά, with the genitive, wzthin or w7th, 97, several times, and 98, 
note, and 117, note, several times. See σύν with the dative 
in expressions under σύν and under μετά in this Index. See 
also προσχυνῶ, 7 bow, and its derived forms, and συμπροσχυν- 
etovtat, to be bowed to, and the other forms derived from it or 


110 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


connected with it; μετά, within or with, 108, note; how Andrew 
of Samosata understood σύν and μετά, 117, note; 97, note; in 
what sense Athanasius and Cyril and the Fifth Synod used it 
in the expression, μετὰ σαρχός, 117, note; 97, note; 225, note; 
μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, within tt, 118, note; μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος, within or 
with His own body, 118, note. See page 119, note, where 
Andrew of Samosata writes that Cyril held that συνηήδρευσεν ὁ 
Υἱὸς τῷ Πατρὶ peta τῆς ἰδίας σαρχός. See also under σάρχα. 
Andrew contends that μετά and σύν mean the same ina certain 
passage, for Cyril writes to him, εἶτα πῶς ἐπιλαμβάνῃ τοῦ λέγον- 
τος ὅτι χρὴ συμροσχυνεῖσϑαι τὸν avipwrov τῷ θεῷ Λόγῳ καὶ συγχρημα- 
τίζειν Θεῷ; ταὐτὸν γάρ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν χαὶ τό Σὺν χαὶ τὸ Μετά, 119, note, 
where see the English translation. Cyril’s reply as to σύν and 
μετά corrupted, 119, note; ue? ἡμῶν, among us or with us, τοῦ, 
note 493; μετὰ σαρχός͵ within or with flesh, 571, 578, 633; See 
cdpxa, μετά, after, in the expression, μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν, 19; μεθ᾽ 
οὗ, with which, 82, note; μετὰ, wzthin or with, in the expression, 
μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρχός, 85, note; 354, note; so, page 85, 
note, where Cyril writes, ἕνα προσχύνει peta τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ 
σαρχὸς τὸν ἐχ Θεοῦ Λόγον; and 86, note, τὸν ἐχ θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον 
μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος; and on page 86, note. ἀλλ᾽ ὧς ἕνα μᾶλλον 
ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῆς σαρχός; and on page 87, note, per αὐτῆς; 
and on the same page, note, μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος; on page 
89, note, in the expression of St. Cvril Eis οὖν apa πρὸς τῶν 
ἄνω πνευμάτων 6 προσχυνούμενος, 6 ἐχ Θεοῦ Πατοὸς Λόγος μετα τῆς 
ἰδίας σαρχός: see under προσχυνούμενος and its cognate forms; 
peta σαρχός, within or with flesh, 97; 222, note; 354, note; 356, 
note, at least thrice; 598, twice; μετὰ σαρχός͵ within or with 
flesh in the statement of the Nestorian Andrew of Samosata 
regarding St. Cyril of Alexandria, λέγων αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρχὸς δεῖν 
προσχυνεῖσϑαι, ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσχυνεῖσϑαι τῇ Θεότητι τὴν σάρχα, 
97, note. See the expression of heretics reported by Athan- 
asius in the note on pages 99 and too, for which he calls 
them impious, especially their words, 05 προσχυνοῦμεν ἡμεῖς τὸν 
Κύριον peta τῆς σαρχός ἀλλὰ διαιροῦμεν τὸ σῶμα, καὶ μόνῳ τουτω 
λατρεύομεν. From this we see that atnanasius used the ex- 
pression μετὰ τῆς σαρχός in the same sense that St. Cyril, his 
successor, did, that is, of bowing to the Lord wzthin or with 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 717 


the flesh, μετὰ τῆς σαρχὸς αὐτοῦ, within or with fiis flesh, 102, 
note: in what sense used by Cyril, 106, note; peta σαρχός, 
within or with flesh, 117, note; 225, note; 354, note; μετὰ 
σαρχός, in the following expression on page 117, note, the 
words being those of the Nestorian Andrew of Samosata, 
where, writing of St. Cyril of Alexandria, he says of him: 
Φαμὲν ὡς πάνυ ἐπιστημονιχῶς ἐπέσχηφε [Cyril] τοῖς σὺν τῇ σαρχὶ 
προσχυνεῖν τῷ ἑνὶ χαὶ τῷ αὐτῷ Υἱῷ βουλομένοις, ὡς ἑτέρου τινὸς ὄντος 
παρὰ τό Σὺν τοῦ Meta* ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἔϑηχεν, ὡς προείρηται, λέγων [Cyril] 
αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρχὸς δεῖν προσχυνεῖσϑαι, ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσχυν- 
εἶσϑαι τῇ Θεότητι τὴν σάρχα, On page 216, note 550, St. Cyril 
writes, μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρχός͵ within His own flesh; and note 
583, page 226, twice; there equivalent to συμπροσχυνεῖσϑαι τῇ 
θεότητι THY σάρχα μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρχός, with or within his 
own flesh, 260, note, and 353, note. In the last instance, 
those who worship Christ’s humanity would translate it, 
“together with His own flesh,’ 353, note. See also under 
προσχυνεῖν and συμπροσχυνεῖν and their cognates in this Index 
for further instances of μετά with the genitive. μετὰ τὴς cap- 
χὸς αὐτοῦ, ““ within’? or ““ with His own flesh,’ 660. μετά, in 
the words of Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, 
which approves him who μιᾷ προσχυνήσει τὸν θεὸν Λόγον capxw- 
ϑέντα μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρχὸς αὐτοῦ, that is, ‘‘ who bows with [but] 
one worship to God the Word infleshed within His own flesh.” 
μετά, its connection with μέσος, mid, middle, midst, 353, 354; 
note; μετά, with the genitive, 353, 354, mote, at least 5 times. 

μετά and σύν, 225, note; see σύν and μετά; and 634. 

μετάνοια, change of mind, in the following cases: μετάνοιαν, change of 
mind, 435, note; μετανοίας, change of mind, 195, note; 488, 
note 779. 

μεταπλασϑῆναι, remodeled or remoulded, 269, note. 

éx μετυχῆς, by partaking, 318, note 640. 

ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the mother of God, 222, note; 318, note 641; 420, 


note’ 741. 
μητροπολιτῶν, Metropolitans, \xxv., note “‘é 


μιᾶς γυναιχὸς ἄνδρα, husband of [but] one wife, 14, note; γεγονυῖα ἑνὸς 
ἀνδρὸς γυνή, wife of [but] oxe man, 14, note. 


᾽}) 


118 Ad I. of Ephesus. 


EE oo 


“μονογενῆ, Sole Born, used of God the Word, 67, note; Movoyevis, Sole- 
Born, 156, note 300; τοῦ Movoyevods, of the Sole-Born, in Cyril 
always of God the Word, as ¢he Sole-Born out of the Father, 
329, note 674; 379, note; 466, note 963; 589; τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου 
* * ἧς τουτέστι τοῦ Movoyevods, the Wordof God * * * 
that is, the Soleborn, 416, note; Nestorius’ use of Μονογενοῦς, 
477, note 1013; μονογενῇ τῆς Καϑολιχῆς ᾿Εχχλησίας τὴν addy decay, 
‘¢ the sole-born truth of the Universal Church,’’ 485, note 1038. 

μορφῇ, in the expression, ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, 72 God's form, 77, note. 

μυρία, ‘countless things’? or ‘‘ spaces,’’ 445, note 829. 

μυστηρίων, of mysteries, Ixxviii., note ‘‘a,’’ μυστήριον, Mystery, Sacra- 
ment, 273, subnote ‘‘k,’’ ta Beta μυστήρια, ‘the Mysteries of 
God,’’ the Eucharistic, 280. 


N 


ναόν, temple, used by Nestorius of Christ’s body, τὸ σῶμα ναὸν xat ναὸν 
χατ᾽ ἄχραν τινά, 163, note 334; ὁ ναός, the temple, 465, note 957. 
See the English in the text of those pages. 

vexpohatpat, worshippers of a corpse, 467, note 966. 

νέχρωσιν, death, 163, note 334. 

Neotépwos, the heresiarch; τὴν Neotoptov βλασφημίαν, the blasphemy of 
Nestorius, xxv., note ‘‘,’’ complimentary titles used by indi- 
viduals for him till he was convicted; for instance, he is 
termed by Theodore of Gadara τὸν τιμιώτατον Neordptov, ““ the 
most honored Nestorius,’’ as head of the Eastern Church, per- 
haps, 174, note 379. The Greek of some of his Blasphemies 
is found on page 416, note 716, and the English to it on page 
All. 

The following is a specimen of his heresy on the Incarnation: ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπειδήπερ 6 Vids τοῦ Θεοῦ διπλοῦς ἐστι xara τὰς φύσεις, οὐχ ἐγέννησε 
μὲν τὸν ΥἹὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, GAN ἐγέννησε τὴν ἀνϑρωπότητα, Aris ἐστιν Υἱὸς 
διὰ τὸν συνημμένον Υἱόν, ‘Translated, this is as follows: ‘‘ For 
the Virgin Bringer Forth of the Anointed One brought forth 
God’s Son, but precisely because the Son of God is double as 
regards His Natures, she did not bring forth the Son of God, 
but she brought forth the humanity, which [humanity] zs Son 
because of the Son conjoined to Him.’’ Here we have also two 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 719: 
ΠΝ ΡτΡΡ Ὸ Ὸ τ τ τ νυν oO EN Nate nwa Eh oe 


Sons, that is, 1, God the Word, and 2, a mere Man, and that 
relative applying of the name of the former to a creature, a 
mere Man, which is in effect anathematized in Cyril’s Anath- 
ema VIII., which is approved by the whole Church at 
Ephesus. See note 890, page 451. 

On Mary, Nestorius writes on page 452, note 895, ἀλλ᾽ οἶδα σεβασμίαν 
τὴν δεξαμένην Θεὸν͵ Ov ἧς προῆλθεν 6 τῶν ὅλων Beds, δὲ ἧς ἀνέλαμφε 
τῆς δικαιοσύνης 6 ἥλιος; ““7 know that she who recetved God ts- 
deserving of respect,’’ or *‘ ts venerable.”’ 

On page 453, in his Blasphemy 2, he admits that God the Word 
‘“ went forth’ (προῆλϑεν) from the Virgin, but denies that He 
was “᾿ born (yey Svat) out of her.’ See there and notes 899, 
goo, 9ΟΙ and 902 on that page. ' 

On pages 450, 451, in his Blasphemy 1, he takes the words ἀριστός, 
Anointed One, Υἱός, Son, and Kopros, Lord, to signify ‘the 
Two Natures’? of Christ, ‘‘ at one time, for example, * * * 
one of them, at another time * * * the other, at still 
another time * * * both of them.’ But there and in 
his Blasphemy 3 on pages 453, 454, he denies that God the 
Word was born out of Mary, and so understands those three 
terms to designate nothing but Christ’s humanity when it is 
said in Holy Writ that Christ, the Son, or the Lord was born 
out of her; and in his first three Blasphemies he thrice denies. 
that God the Word was born out of her. See all those pages, 
text, and the Greek of the notes, especially notes 883 and 
905. His Blasphemy 4 denies five times the birth of God the 
Word out of the Virgin, and his Epistle to Cyril denies it six 
times; see the former on pages 454 to 458, and on the latter, 
note 335, page 164. That makes fourteen timesin all. And 
indeed, that denial is implied in others of his XX. Blas- 
phemies. It is strange that, after all this, some will still 
ignorantly and perversely maintain that the heresiarch was 
wrongly condemned and deposed, and so refuse to anathema- 
tize him. Such persons are justly anathematized themselves 
in Anathemas XI. and XIV. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. 

In his Blasphemy 4 Nestorius tries to so pervert the γεννηϑέν of 
Matt. i., 20, as to make it teach that Christ is a mere Man; 
see it on pages 454 to 458, and notes 910-932 there. 


120 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ei a ee a Ge Senden ana 


On page 504, the Third Ecumenical Council, in their Sentence of 
Deposition on Nestorius, say to him that it was done ‘‘ oz 
account of thy blasphemous preachings,’’ διὰ τὰ δυσσεβῆ σοῦ 
χηρύγματα. 

See further on Nestorius’ heresies under the different forms of 
προσχυνέω, and under ἀνϑρωπολατρεία, Man Worship, ἀνϑρωπο- 
gayta, eating a Man, that is, Cannibalism, otxetwots οἰχονομιχή, 
Economic Appropriation, Εὐχαριστία, Eucharist; συνάφεια, Con- 
junétion, σάρχωσις, putting on flesh, Incarnation, σαρκωθέντα, 
infleshed; γίνομαι, become, made, be, in this Index. 

νεύματος, Aecreé€, 32, note 70. 

νομός, Nome, vopot, Nomes, distriéis in Egypt, 499, note. 

νοσοῦσης, sick tn mind, doting, 163, note 334. 


0 


οἰχειότητα τὴν πνευματιχήν, spiritual intimacy, 64, note. 

οἰχειότητος, of appropriation, 163, note 334. 

οἰχείωσιν, οἰχονομιχήν, Economic Appropriation, see oixovopexny oixetwory, 

οἰχειώσασϑαι, appropriated to Himself, 65, note; οἰχειούμενος, appropriat- 
ing to Himself in the expression, ὡς τῆς ἰδίας σαρχὸς τὴν γέννησιν 
οἰχειούμενος, appropriating to Himself the birth of His own flesh, 
FA, MOte 173; Kat ἣν ἐν τῷ σταυρωϑέντι σώματι τὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρχὸς 
ἀπαϑῶς οἰχειούμενος πάϑη, ““4πά He [God the Word] was zn the 
suffering body without suffering, and yet appropriating to Him- 
self [that is, ‘‘ claiming as His own’? ], the sufferings of Fits 
own flesh,’’ 227, note 585. See under πάϑος and οἰχονομιχὴν 
οἰχείωσι. See also in the General Index under Economic Ap- 
propriation, οἰχειοῦσϑαι, appropriates to Ltself, 163, note 334. 

οἰχονομία, used of the Christian Dispensation, 157, note 308; of the 
Incarnation, 161, note 317. 

οἰχονομιχὴν oixstwow, Economic Appropriation, 75, note; 409, note; 410, 
note; see also under πάδος and under οἰχειότητος. See also in 
the General Index under Economic Appropriation, and 603. 

otxovopix@s, Economically, 319, note 651. 

οἰχουμένην, τήν, the inhabited world, 89, note. 

οἰχουμένης, in the expression on page xliv., note “‘a.”’ The reference 
is to an appeal to the common sense of the Christian world in 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expresstons. 121 


Century II. by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, against the 
threats of Victor of Rome. 

οἰχουμενιχῶν, Ecumenical, or, better in this place, worldly, 40. 

ὁμοδυναμεῖ, 15 of the same tenor, 153, note 282. 

ὁμοδύναμον, of the same tenor, 145, note. 

ὁμουύσιον, see capza and Svvovetactat, 

ὁμοιότητα, tov, the likeness, 282, note. 

ὁμολογία, profession, 373, note. 

ὁμοουσιαστής, Homooustast, that is, a Same-Substancette, 211, note. 
The word, as Sophocles in his Lexicon states, was of Arian 
coinage. It was intended as a reproach. 

ὁμοούσιον͵ in Valentinus’ denunciation of the Timotheans for ‘‘ daring 
to assert that the body taken out of Mary ts of the same Sub- 
stance as the Divintty,’’ τοὺς τολμήσαντας εἰπεῖν ὁμοούσιον τὸ 2x 
Mapias σῶμα tH Ocdtyte. See the whole passage with its 
English translation on page 431. 

ὁμῶνυμον, of the same name or tenor, 144, note. 

ὁσιωτάτου, most holy, 32, note 69; most devout, 166, note 350. 

Odahevtivos, Valentinus, see ὁμοούσιον and σῶμα. 

ὀρϑόδοξος͵ of right opinions, orthodox, 192, note 475; 211, note. 

οὐσίας, Substance, 442, note 821. 


I] 


παϑητὸν ἀρχιερέα, ‘a passible High Priest,’ 471, note 990. 

πάϑος, suffering, 163, note 334; aus, suffering; nan, sufferings, 
ἀπαϑής, without suffering, and ἀπαϑῶς, unsufferingly, in the 
two following passages on Economic Appropriation, see under 
that expression in the General /ndex, and under οἰχονομιχὴν οἰχεί- 
wot; see also under οἰχειότητος, of appropriation. On page 
410, note, we read in Cyril’s Epistle to John of Antioch, 
which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 
᾿4παϑὴ δὲ πρὸς τούτῳ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου ὑπάρχειν ὁμολογοῦμεν ἅπαντες, 
χἄν εἰ πανσόφως Αὐτὸς οἰχονομῶν τὸ μυστήριον, ᾿Εαυτῷ προσνέμων 
ὁρῷτο τὰ τῇ ἰδία σαρχὶ, συμβεβηχότα πάϑη. Ταύτῃ τοι χαὶ ὁ πάνσοφος 
Πέτρος ““ Χριστοῦ οὖν, φησὶ, παϑόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σαρχὶ͵᾽᾽ χαὶ οὐχὶ τῇ 

φύσει τῆς ἀῤῥήτου ϑεότητος. Ἵνα γὰρ Αὐτὸς ὁ τῶν ὅλων Σωτὴρ 

εἶναι πιστεύηται, xat’ οἰχείωσιν οἰχυνυμικὴν εἰς “Eautov, ὡς ἔφην, τὰ τῆς 

ἐδίας σαρχὸς ἀναφέρει xan, that is in English, 


722 Act I. of Ephesus. 


‘* And moreover, we all confess that the Word of God is not liable 
to suffering, even though He Himself in all-wisely managing 
the mystery [of Redemption] is seen to ascribe to Himself the 
sufferings which happened to His own flesh. And for that 
very reason the all-wise Peter saith, Christ then hath suffered 
for us in the flesh [I. Peter iv. 1], and not in the nature of the 
ineffable Divinity. For in order that He Himself may be be- 
lieved to be the Saviour of all, He refers the sufferings of His. 
own flesh to Himself by Economic Appropriation, as I have 
said. A thing implying that doctrine is what was predicted 
through the prophetic utterance, as from Himself, / gave my 
back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows, and 7 turned not away 
my face from the spitting s of shame’? [Isaiah 1.,6]. On page 410, 
note, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Long Epistle to Nestor- 
ius, which was approved and made of Ecumenical authority 
by the Third Council of the whole Church, and which must 
therefore be accepted and believed by all under pain of anath- 
ema, writes as follows: 


Ὁμολογοῦμεν δὲ ὅτι Αὐτὸς ὁ ἐχ θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηϑεὶς Υἱὸς xat θεὸς Movoyevns 
χαίτοι χατὰ φύσιν ἰδιαν ὑπάρχων ἀπαϑὴς, σαρχὶ πέπονϑεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, 
χατὰ τὰς Γραφάς" χαὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ σταυρωϑέντι σώματι τὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρχὸς: 
ἀπαδϑῶς οἰχειούμενος πάϑη; that is, ‘‘ And we confess that He 
Himself, the Son born out of God the Father, and God 
Sole-Born, although in His own [Divine] Nature He is not 
liable to suffering, [nevertheless] suffered in flesh for us, ac- 
cording to the Scriptures, and He, though He did not suffer, 
[nevertheless] was in the crucified body, appropriating to 
Himself the sufferings of His own flesh.’’ On page 411, 
note, is found the following, which has πάϑους and bears on 
Economic Appropriation; it is found in the longer recension 
of Ignatius’ Zpzstle to the Romans, ᾿Επιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναε 
τοῦ παήἥονυς τοῦ θεοῦ pov, ‘* Permit me to be an imitator of the 
suffering of my God.’’ Page 410, note, also has a passage on 
Economic 4»vpropriation, which I place here for that reason; 
it is from the longer recension of Ignatius’ Apzstle to the 
Ephesians, and is as follows: ἀναξωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ, 
“ὁ yecalled to life by God's blood.’’ Πάϑος, suffering, 603. 


Index IV Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 128 


παιδίον, τό, the little child of Matt. ii., 20, interpreted by Nestorius to 
mean not God the Word Incarnate, but His merely human 
Christ, 453, note 906, and the whole of Nestorius’ Blasphemy 
3 in the text there. 
παρά, in the sense of coztrary to in the expressions, παρὰ τὴν πίστιν, 
contrary to the faith, 172, note 367; παρὰ τὴν ὁρισϑεῖσαν παρὰ τῶν 
ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν τῇ Nixagwy συνελθόντων σὺν “Αγίῳ Πνεύματι, 
““ οογιέγαγγ to the faith decreed [or ‘‘decided’’| by tre holy 
Fathers who came together with the Holy Ghost in the city of the 
Nicaeans,’’ 172, note 367. παρὰ τὸν χτίσαντα, in Romansi., 25, 
‘* contrary to the Creator,’’ 172, note 367; see remarks of ex- 
planation there. zap’ ὃ παρελάβετε, contrary to |or besides, | that 
which ye have recetved, 173, note 368. 


΄ 


παραδίδοται, 2s transmitted, transmits, 161, note 317. 


mapadoow, transmission, tradition, in the phrase, τὴν ἀποστολιχὴν παρά- 
δοσιν, 132, note. τὴν παράδοσιν, the Delivery or Transmission, 
156, note 296; and παράδοσιν in the expression of Nestorius, 
τότε THY τῆς ἐνανϑβρωπήσεως, χαὶ τοῦ πάδους, χαὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως 
ἐποιχοδομοῦσι παράδοσιν, 156, note; τὴν παράδοσιν, the tradition, 
the transmission, 156, note 296, and 156, note 301; τῶν εὐαγγελι- 
χῶν παραδόσεων, the Gospel transmissions, 163, note 334. zapa- 
δόσεις, transmissions, traditions, 164, note 339; TH παραδόσει τῆς 
αϑολιχῆς ᾿Εχχλησίας͵ the tradition of the Universal Church, 170, 
note 364; παράδοσις explained, 170, note 364. 

xata παράϑεσιν͵ by zuxtaposition, 218, note 562. 

παρερμηνεύω, 7) misinterpret, 474, note 1007. παρερμηνεύων, misinterpret- 
ing, 474, note 1007. 

εἰ παρίσταται, zf it be pleasing or since it ts at hand, 57, note. 

napotxtas, Parish, Parec, what we commonly call a diocese now, 497, 
text and note. 

6 Cav Πατήρ, the Living Father, 474, note 1007; Πατρὸς, παρά, ‘‘ by 
the Father,’’ 316, note 621. 

πατριάρχης, patriarch, 32, note 73. 

πελάγων͵ of seas, 445, note 829, 

πελαγῶν͵ of seas, 445, note. 

περιβόλαιον, a wrapping, said of Christ’s flesh, 431, note. It is used 
by Valentinus the Apollinarian there. 


724 Ac I, of Ephesus. 


ee 


περιοδευτής, a visitor, itinerant, literally, oxe who goes about, 496, 
note 1112. The plural is found in the same note. 

πηδάλιον, rudder, 144, note 238. 

πίνων, arinking, 474, note 1007. 

nestevoper, We believe, 433, note. 

πίστις, faith, Creed, 50, notes; 133, note; πίστει *k OK OK γεγενημένῃ, 
the Faith composed [at Nicaea], 135, note; see παράδοσις, and 
623; see also πίστει in note 256, page 147, and the long Greek 
passage in which it stands, where the faith of Nicaea is lauded. 
In note 259, page 148, itiscalled the διαλάμπουσαν πίστιν; πίστεως 
in note 263, page 148; τῇ τὴς Καϑολιχῆς ᾿Εχχλησίας πίστει, the 
faith of the Universal Church; see under παρά, Atticus of 
Constantinople is termed ὁ διδάσχαλος τῆς Καϑολιχῆς Πίστεως, the 
teacher of the Universal faith, 180, note 395; πίστεως, credit OF 
good faith, 415, note 708; πίστει, that of the Apollinarian 
Valentinus, 431, note; τῇ πίστει τῶν Χριστιανῶν πεπραγμένων, for 
the good faith of the Christian Acts, 449, note 879. 

Πνεῦμα, in the following cases: Πνεύματι, in the expression of Cyril 
regarding worship of the “Three Persons of the Trinity, on 
page go, note, σὺν τῷ “Αγίῳ Πνεύματι; xat μὴν χαὶ εἰς 
τὸ “Δγων Πνεῦμα, ‘and moreover to the Holy Spirit 
also,’ or, ‘‘and moreover in the Holy Spirit also,’’ 314, 
note 621; Πνεύματος * * * ‘Ayton, ‘of the Holy Ghost,” 
455, note 911; ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ εἰς αὐτό, ‘‘in the Spirit, and 
[watching] zz Zt,” [or ‘‘for ft’), 314, note 6217 τον 
Πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει, “ The Spirit pleads in us for us [or ‘‘ zn- 
tercedes for τις] with unutterable groanings,’’ 314, note 321; 
πνεῦμα, τὸ, the Spirit, 316, note; χαὶ προχεῖται [the Holy Spirit] 
rap αὐτοῦ, xatdnep ἀμέλει χαὶ ἐχ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός, ‘‘ And It [the 
Spirit] ἐς poured forth from [or ‘‘ by’’ | Him |God the Word] as 
[It is] certainly also out of the God and Father, 317; note 638; 
πνεύματι, by the Spirit or in Spirit, 419, note 732; Πνεύματι, in 
Divinity, Gregory of Nazianzus so uses the term on page 440, 
note 807. 

ποιέο, 7 make; forms of the verb; πουρήσαντι, made or appointed, 373, 
note; 469, note 975. On page 373, ποιήσοντε is an error for 
ποιήσαντι, ποιηϑέντα, made, 455, note gil. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Lxpressions, 725 


Πολέμιος, Polemtus, the leader of the Cosubstancer wing of the Apol- 
linarians. See on him and his errors under ὁμουύσιον and 
σῶμα and συμπροσχυνεῖται, and the Greek and its English trans- 
lation on page 431. 

ποτήριον, τό, the cup, 231, note. 

Πραχτιχὸν τῆς Τρίτης Xvv0d0v, Book of the Acts of the Third Synod, 1, 
note. 

τοῖς πραττομένοις, the things done, the Acis 204, note 519. 

πρεσβείαν, a delegation, 483, note 1028. 

πρέσβεις, delegates, 484, note 1034. 

πρεσβύτερος, elder, presbyter, 46, note: 47, note; 363, note 682. 

προεδρεύοντος, presiding, being President, Foresitter, 209, note. 

προέχοπτεν, progressed, 470, note 983. 

προῆλϑεν, went forth, 453, notes 899 and go1, where we find προελϑεῖν; 
see δεστόριος. 

προχείμενον τό, the point before us, 474, note. 

προλάμπει, shines forth, 179, note 393. 

προπατοριχὸν ἁμάρτημα, forefather’s sin, originat sin, 193, note 482. 

Forms of the verb προσχυνέω: προσχεχυνήχαμεν, we have bowed to, 88, 
note. See the whole passage in which it stands under ἀνϑρω- 
πηλάτρῃς in this Index. On page 378, note, we read, Ἐξ yap 
ἐπείπερ γέγονε xa¥ ἡμᾶς προσχεχύνηχε μεϑ ἡμῶν ὡς ἀνϑρωπος" καίτοι 
προσχυνούσης αὐτὸν τῆς ἄνω πληδύος, χαὶ τῶν ἁγίων πνευμάτων, λέγον- 
τός τε Π]ωυσέος περὶ αὐτοῦ "" Εὐφράνϑητε οὐρανοὶ ἅμα αὐτῷ καὶ προσχυν- 
ησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ, In English [815 15, ‘‘ For if when 
He was made a man like us, He worshipped with usas a Man, 
although the multitude above and the Holy Spirits worship Him 
[as God the Word, ] and Moses saith concerning Him, Rejoice ye 
heavens with Him, and let all God’s sons worship Flim,’ etc., 
Deut. xxxii., 43, Sept. προσχυνῶ, 7 bow, in the following 
forms: προσχυνούμενος, bowed to, worshipped, 64, note; πρυσ- 
xuvetv, to bow in Cyril’s expression, δὲ μὲν γὰρ ἡνῶσϑαι φὴς xa¥ 
ὑπόστασιν τῷ ex Θευῦ φύντε Λόγῳ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τὶ τὴν ϑείαν εἰπέ μοι 
περιυβρίξεις σάρχα; Καίτοι πρυσχυνεῖν αὐτῇ μὴ παραιτηυμενος, πρέπον- 
τος μόνῃ τῇ Θείᾳ τε χαὶ ἀποῤῥήτῳ φυσει τυῦ προσχυνεῖσδϑαι δεῖν, 80, 
note, and 347, note, See σέβω, ἀνϑρωπυολατρεία and ἀνϑρωπυ- 
ddtpns. προσχυνεῖν͵ to bow, 80, note. See also under the fol- 
lowing words: μετά with the genitive, and σὺν with the dative, 


δ 


726 


Act 7. of Ephesus. 


and δοξάξω and συνδοξάξω and their derived forms. προσχυνῶ, 
7 bow to, in the expression of Nestorius, τρυσχυνῶ δὲ σὺν tH 
ϑεότητι τοῦτον, ὡς τῆς θείας συνήγορον αὐϑεντίας, 81, note. προσ- 
χυνῶ, J bow to, in Nestorius’ profession of γοίαΐζυε Creature- 
Worship as told us by Cyril, ““ Διὰ τὸν gopuivta,’? φησὶ, ** τὸν 
gopobpevoy σέβω" διὰ τὸν χεχρυμμένυον προσχυνῶ τὸν gatvouevoy,’’ 85, 
note; and see 223, note; and προσχυνῶ in the expression on 
page 86, note, where Cyril is ridiculing the above language 
of Nestorius: Διὰ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ψυχὴν σέβω τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, διὰ 
τὸν χεχρυμμένον πρυσχυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον. On page 221, St. Cyril 
and the Synod of his Diocese, in their Ecumenically approved 
Long Epistle to Nestorius say in response to some of Nestor- 
ius’ language above, Παραιτούμεδα δὲ λέγειν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ, “ Διὰ 
τὸν Φυροῦντα τὸν φυρούμενον σέβω, διὰ τὸν ᾿Αόρατον προσχυνῶ τὸν 
ὁρώμενον,᾽᾽ φριχτὸν δὲ πρὸς toutw χἀχεῖνο εἰπεῖν “" Ὁ ληφϑεὶς τῷ 
Λαβόντι συγχρηματίξει Θεός,’ ‘* Furthermore we decline to say of 
Anointed, ‘I WORSHIP HIM wHO IS WORN [that is, the mere 
Man indwelt not by God the Word’s Substance, but only by 
the influences of His Holy Spirit,] FoR THE SAKE OF HIM 
[God the Word] WHo wears Him. I Bow To HIM ΨΗΟ is 
EEN [the mere Man, that is, the mere creature] ON ACCOUNT 
or Him [God the Word] ΗΟ IS UNSEEN; and it is A HOR- 
RIBLE THING to say also, in addition to that, HE wHo Is 
TAKEN [the mere Man] IS CO-CALLED GOD WITH Him [God 
the Word] WHO HAS TAKEN HIM.’’’ See under Unzon, and 
what next follows the above on page 222, where Cyril shows 
that in “216 [true] Union * * * xno one is bowed toas one 
with another, nor is any co-called God as one with another, 
but Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, is understood to be 
[only] one, and ἧς honored with [but] one bow within fis 
own flesh.’ See part of the Greek just below in note 583. 
By all these names of the Son Cyril means only God the 
Word, Who has, however, put on flesh; see in proof page 
313, note 616, and the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alex- 
andria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 200-202, 
Section 13, of Cyril’s Scholia, and indeed, all of St. Cyril’s 
Scholia on the Incarnation of the Sole Born there. 1 translate 
Movoyens by Sole Born, and the Oxford translator renders it 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 727 
που 6.0.6 δὲ ἐσ dT eh ΠΥ ΕΣ 


Only-Begotten. The Sole Born out of the Father, that is, 
God the Word, is meant by the expression, as it is in the 
following very important passage of Cyril on page 225, note, 
in this volume, where he is commenting on Hebrews i., 6, 
and showing against the WNestorians that the Sole-Born 
(Movoyevjs), and the First Brought Forth (Πρωτότοχον) mean 
God the Word alone, and that the worship there ordered by 
the Father is to Him alone, within His flesh as in a shrine, 
and not, as Nestorius falsely asserted, to a mere creature, 
even His humanity; I quote it: ‘‘ “Oray δὲ εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν Πρωτότοχον 
εἰς τὴν οἰχουμένην λέγει, Kat προσχυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελλοι 
Θεοῦ." 

“ΜΜονογενὴς χατὰ φύσιν 6 ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ὠνόμασται Λόγος, ὅτι μόνος ἐχ μόνου 
γεγέννηται τοῦ Πατρός" εἴρηται δὲ χαὶ Πρωτότοχος͵ ὅτε χαὶ εἰσῆλϑεν εἰς 
τὴν οἰχουμένην ἄνϑρωπος γεγονὼς, χαὶ μέρος αὐτῆς. Πλὴν χαὶ οὕτω 
προσχυνεῖται παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων, ἄναχειμένου τε χαὶ πρέποντος 
μόνῷ Θεῷ τοῦ χαὶ προσχυνεῖσϑαι δεῖν, Πῶς οὖν οὐ Θεὸς 6 Χριστὸς, 6 
χαὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ προσχυνούμενος, that is in English: ‘‘ From the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, ‘And when He bringeth in the First 
Brought Forth into the inhabited world, He saith, And let all 
God’s angels bow to Him.’ 

*“The Word who has come out of God the Father has been named 
Sole-Born with reference to His [Divine] Nature, because He 
alone has been born out of the Father alone. And He was 
called /irst Brought Forth also when having been made Man 
He came into the inhabited world and [became] a part of it. 
And besides He is so bowed to by the holy angels, and that 
too when THE RIGHT TO BE BOWED TO BELONGS TO AND 
BEFITS Gop ALONE. How then is Christ not Gop, sREING 
THAT HE IS BOWED TO EVEN IN HEAVEN?”’ Here again we 
have the old Christian argument, Since all religious bowing 
is prerogative to God alone, and since the Father commands 
it to be given to the Word, therefore He [the Word] must be 
God. In note 583, page 226, Cyril writes, ἀλλ᾽ εἷς νοεῖται 
Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, Υἱὸς Πονογενὴς, μιᾷ προσχυνήσει τιμώμενος μετὰ τῆς 
ἰδίας σαρχός, In English this is, ‘‘ But Anointed Jesus, Son, 
Sole-Born, ts understood to be [only] one, and is honored with 
[but] ONE BOWING [that is, with but ONE wWorsHIP, that is, 


728 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


God-W orship, not mere Nestorian Man-Worship] within His 
own fiesh,’’ 226, note 583. On page 461, note 949, we find 
the Greek of a passage of Nestorius above quoted again, but 
more fully in his Blasphemy 8, with a profession in order to 
escape the charge of worshipping a mere separate Man, a 
mere creature, that is, Christ’s mere humanity, that though 
he separated the Natures, he nevertheless united the worship 
of them, that is, he worshipped them with but one bowing, 
that is, with but one worship, that is, with worship to God 
the Word absolutely, combined with his own relative wor- 
ship to His humanity. That excuse did not save Nestorius 
from condemnation and deposition. Indeed, that Blasphemy 
8 is adduced as one of the proofs of his /an- Worship (ἀνθρω- 
modatpeta), on the basis of which and other proofs and Blas- 
phemies he is deposed at the end of Act I., in which it stands. 
His creature worship in it is condemned by Cyril in his. 
Shorter Epistle, on pages 79-85, text, above; and in his Longer 
Epistle, on pages 221-223, text, above, and in its Anathema 
VIII. Both those Epistles, including that Anathema, are 
approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Nestorius’ 
Man-Worship is condemned again by the Fifth Ecumenical 
Synod in its Definition, and in its Anathema IX. For his 
excuse for it leaves it, nevertheless, 1/an-Worship still, and 
that confessed by Himself. I quote here the whole of that 
Blasphemy 8, as on page 461, note 949: 4ta τὸν φοροῦντα τὸν 
φορούμενον σέβω. lta τὸν χεχρυμμένον προσχυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον. 
‘Aywptstos τοῦ φαινομένου Θεός, Διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ μὴ χωριξομένου τὴν 
τιμὴν οὐ χωρίξω. Χωρίξω τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἑνῶ τὴν προσχύνησιν, ‘The 
English is, ‘‘ 7 bow to him [the Man, that is, Christ’s human- 
ity] who ἐς worn, for the sake of Him [God the Word] Who 
wears. I bow to him [the mere Man, Christ’s humanity] who 
is seen, for the sake of Him [God the Word] Who ts hidden. 
God is unseparated from him [the Man] who appears. For 
that reason I do not separate the honor of the unseparated One. 
7 separate the Natures, but 1 UNITE THE BOWING.” As this 
question of Nestorius’ Man-Worship, that is, Creature-Wor- 
ship, in the mind of Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council 
was a most important and burning one, as involving error 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 129 


i ee 


against Christ’s law in Matt. iv., 10, and other texts (see note 
matter on pages 94-96), we find it referred to again and again; 
see in proof the passages quoted above and under all the 
forms of προσχυνῶ and προσχύνησις here, and in note 949, pages 
461-463. ‘This sin of Man-Worship is found in the following 
of the XX. Blasphemies, on the basis of which, among other 
things, Nestorius was deposed, Blasphemies 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 
and 15; see them on pages 459-469. Nestorius, in note 965, 
page 466, says, προσχυνῶ δὲ σὺν τῇ Θεότητι τοῦτον ὡς τῆς Betas 
συνεργὸν αὐϑεντίας, that 15, in English, ‘‘ 7 bow to him”? [Christ’s 
mere separate humanity] ‘‘/ogether with the Divinity” [οἵ 
God the Word] ‘‘ zzasmuch as he’’ [the mere Man] ‘‘7zs ἃ co- 
worker with the divine authority.’’ Here we have relative 
worship of the mere separate creature again. 

προσχυνῶ, 7 bow to, I worship, 597, 628, 637; προσχυνοῦμεν, in the follow- 
ing passage on page 98, note: Ob χτίσμα προσκυνοῦμεν" μὴ γένοιτο. 
᾿Εϑνιχῶν γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αρειανῶν 4 τοιαύτη πλάνη" ἀλλὰ τὸν Κύριον τῆς 
χτίσεως σαρχωϑέντα τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον προσχυνοῦμεν. The English 
of this is, ‘‘ We do not worship a creature. God forbid! For 
such an error as that belongs to the pagans and to the Arians. 
But we worship the Lord of the Creation Who has put on flesh, 
that is, the Word of God.’? ‘The word ‘‘ worship’ in this pas- 
sage means literally to dow, but, as is common in Athanasius 
and Cyril, is used for that and every other act of worship, as 
being the most common of them all. προσχυνοῦμεν, we bow to, 
that is, we worship, in Cyril’s reply to the Orientals, in which 
he asks them, οὐχέτι δὲ τὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπείᾳ μορφῇ πεφηνότα Ov ἡμᾶς 
προσχυνοῦμεν Λόγον, 120, ποῖα; 'ἰπΠ English, ‘‘ dve we no longer 
to bow to the Word Who has appeared in human form for us?” 
προσχυνοῦμεν in the expression in note 548, page 215, Ἡνῶσϑαί 
γε μὴν σαρχὶ xa? ὑπόστασιν ὁμολογοῦντες τὸν Λόγον, ἕνα προσχυνοῦμεν 
Υἱὸν χαὶ Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν: ““ Moreover, confessing that the 
Word has been Substancely united to flesh, we bow to but one Son 
and Lord, Jesus Anointed,’ προσχυνοῦμεν, We bow to, we worship, 
633. προσχυνοῦμεν, we bow to, in Athanasius’ expression, Ποῦ 
δὲ ὅλως οἱ ἀσεβεῖς χαὶ xa? ἑαυτὴν εὐρήσουσι τὴν σάρχα, ἥν ἔλαβεν ὁ 
Σωτὴρ, ἵνα xa τολμῶσι λέγειν: OD προσχυνοῦμεν ἡμεῖς τὸν Κύριον μετὰ 


τῆς σαρχός" ἀλλὰ διαιροῦμεν τὸ σῶμα xat μόνῳ τούτῳ λατρεύυμεν. 


730 Act I. of Ephesus. 


This passage is found in Section 5 of his Epistle to Adelphius, 
Here Athanasius uses μετὰ τῆς σαρχός, in the sense of wzthin or 
with the flesh, a use in which St. Cyril, his successor, follows 
him, as we see under μετὰ and προσχυνῶ and συμπροσχυνέω in 
this Index. I translate: ‘‘ But where at all will the impious 
men find any reason for daring to say also in regard to the flesh 
itself which the Saviour took, WE DO NOT BOW TO THE LORD 
WITHIN THE FLESH, BUT WE SEPARATE THE BODY AND SERVE 
IT ALONE.’ 

On the above passage I would add the following Remark: In the 
translation of the Greek in the note on pages 99 and 100, above, 
I have, in the main, followed the rendering of the latter part 
of it, as I find it on pages 66 and 67 of the Oxford translation 
of Saint Athanasius’ Later Treatises. Yet I confess that I 
doubt whether it is the most exact rendering. See both those 
places. The question is whether the τούτῳ in the last part of 
the sentence does not refer to Christ’s dody instead of to God 
the Word. I give it again, as on page 100 above: 

Ob προσχυνοῦμεν ἡμεῖς τὸν Λύριον peta τῆς σαρχός" ἀλλὰ διαιροῦμεν τὸ σῶμα, 
χαὶ μόνῳ τούτῳ λατρεύομεν. ‘The natural sense would seem to 
make τούτῳ refer to the body, in which case we must trans- 
late: ‘‘Wedo not bow to the Lord within the flesh, but we 
separate the body and serve it.’’ 

The common rule of Greek Grammar is that οὗτος refers to what im- 
mediately precedes it. But σῶμα, that is ‘‘ body,” is here the 
nearer, and not τὸν Κύριον, ‘the Lord.’’ According to this, 
the creature serving Arians here referred to, (and let us 
remember that all the Arians worshipped, on their own confes- 
sion, a created Logos), who went so far as to deny the Incar- 
nation, could, on their own creature-worshipping principles, 
worship Christ’s humanity, as they seem to do here. Hence, 
as we see in this Apzstle to Adelphius, St. Athanasius argues 
against giving any worship to it as wrong; see above, pages 
98-101. 

If we could know exactly what the heretics held to, whom Athan- 
asius is here opposing, we might get at his meaning in the 
above passage. He is not in every respect so clear as we 
might desire, but we can gather the following: 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 1981 


1. Like the other Arians they denied the Divinity of the Son, and 
made Him a mere creature; but, unlike them, they denied 
His Incarnation, and hence made their Christ to be a mere 
Man, as the Nestorians afterwards did theirs, and, like them, 
made all worship of that mere Man to be mere Man-Worship 
of course. ‘This seems to be implied by Athanasiusin Section 
1 of that Epistle to Adelphius. I quote a part of it: 

“*FRormerly, while denying the Divinity of the Sole-Born Son of God, 
they pretended that at any rate they acknowledged His com- 
ing in the flesh; but now, taking a downward course little by 
little, they have fallen away from even this opinion of theirs, 
and are become godless at all points, so as neither to recog- 
nize Him as God, nor to believe that He became Man.’’ 
Hence, as has just been said, their Christ was a mere Man, 
like the Christ of the Nestorians, and their worship of him 
was mere worship of a Man, like that of the Nestorians © 

2. While refusing to call the Son God, and to worship Him, they 
did worship His body, for Christ’s humanity was their sole 
and only Christ. For Athanasius in Section 5 of the same 
Epistle writes what implies all that. I quote: 

** These sayings of theirs are being uttered with diabolical audacity, 
through the evil mindedness which they have contrived for 
themselves. For those who refuse to worship the Word made 
flesh are unthankful for His Inman (οἱ yap μὴ θέλοντες σάρχα 
γενόμενον τὸν Λόγον προσχυνεῖν, ἀχαριστοῦσι τῇ svavIpwxycet αὐτοῦ); 
and those who separate the Word from the flesh think that 
no redemption has been made for sin, and that there has been 
no undoing of death. But where at all will the impious men 
find any reason for daring to say also in regard to the flesh 
itself which the Saviour took, ‘‘ We do not bow to the Lord 
within the flesh, but we separate the body and serve tt alone.”’ 

Hence Athanasius throughout this whole Epistle devotes himself to 
asserting and proving the Incarnation of God the Word, the 
necessity of worshipping Him inside His flesh as in a temple, 
and the wrong of worshipping His humanity, a mere creature. 
Some of those points are made by him in the above quotations. 
All of them are made in the Epistle itself. A translation of 
it will, God willing, appear later on in this Set, which wili 


732 Act I. of Ephesus. 


bring out these facts. Meanwhile the reader is warned against 
the translation of it in the Later Treatises of Saint Athanasius 
for it errs grievously in places as do some of the notes on it. 
In the note on pages 98-101 above I have translated a part of 
it in which Athanasius shows that he held the flesh of Christ 
to benon-worshippable. Toit I refer the Scholar. I can do 
no nore in this Index. 

The Admonitio on the Epistle of Saint Athanasius to Adelphius, in 
col. 1069-1072, tome xxvi. of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, is 
far astray in giving the scope of that Letter. It is by a blind 
Romanist who could not see the truth on Creature Worship 
because he himself was an idolater. Bright has followed him 
too much. 

προσχυνοῦμεν, in the profession of worship to the two Natures by the 
Nestorian Theodoret, ‘‘ We dow fo,’’ that is to say, ‘‘ We wor- 
shih as one Son Him who took and that which was taken,” ws 
ἕνα μὲν υἱὸν προσχυνοῦμεν τὸν λαδόντα χαὶ τὸ ληφϑέν, 116, note. 
προσχύνει, bow to,in the expression, ἕνα προσχύνει μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας 
αὐτοῦ σαρχὸς τὸν ἐχ Θεοῦ Λόγον, 85, note; in English, ““ὅοτυ to 
[but] One, the Word Who has come out of God, within His own 
flesh.’ προσχυνεῖς, thou bowest, thou worshippest, 82, note. 
προσχυνήσεις, thou shalt bow to, 83, note. οὐδὲ προσχυνήσεις, thou 
shalt not bow to, in the expression, οὐχ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ θεὸς πρόσφατος, 
οὐδὲ προσχυνήσεις Θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ, 88, note, where see the English. 
See also πρόσφατος θεός, προσχυνήσεις, thou shalt bow, 103, note. 
προσχυνεῖται, ts bowed to, in Cyril’s expression, προσχυνεῖται yap 
χαὶ μετὰ σαρχὸς, ὡς χαὶ πρὸ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχων προσχυνητὸς͵ ἦν γὰρ χαὶ ἔτι 
χατὰ φύσιν θεὸς, χαὶ πρὸ τῆς xevWaews, etc., 84, note; where see the 
English. zpooxuvettat, ἧς bowed to, 85, note: προσχυνεῖται, are 
bowed to, 107, note. προσχυνεῖται, ἧς bowed to, is found on page 
431, in a passage of Valentinus, the Apollinarian, where he is 
arguing against Timothy, the leader of the other wing of the 
Apollinarians, the Cosubstancers, and telling how his heresy 
differs from theirs, πολὺ δὲ ἠγνόησαν Τιμόθεος, xat 6 διδάσχαλος 
αὐτοῦ Πολέμιος,͵ καὶ of σὺν αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ προσώπου τοῦ 
Θεοῦ Λόγου χαὶ τῆς σαρχὸς, τῆς γενομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου πρὸς 
Θεὸν ἡ προσχύνησις σαρχωϑέντα, οὐ πρὸς σάρχα ἣ προσχύνησις" οὐδὲ 


γὰρ 6 Λόγος διὰ τὴν σάρχα προσχυνεῖται͵ ἀλλ᾽ ἡ σὰρξ τῷ Λόγῳ συμ- 


Index IV. Index to Greek. Words and Expressions. 133 


προσχυνεῖται. In English this is, ‘‘ 7zmotheus, and Polemius, his 
teacher, and their followers, were very ignorant of the fact that 
inasmuch as there is but one Person of God the Word and of the 
flesh made by God the Word, the bowing ἐς to be done to God who 
has put on flesh; the bowing is not to be done to the flesh; for the 
Word is not bowed to on account of the flesh; but the flesh ts co- 
bowed to with the Word, as a garment and wrapping, as 7 have 
said before.”’ 

Here two differences of Valentinus from St. Cyril are to be noted. 

1. Whereas, Cyril uses both Person (Πρόσωπον), and Subsistence, that 
is Being ( Ἱπόστασις) for God the Word alone, the heretic Val- 
entinus applies Person (Πρόσωπον) to God the Word and to His 
flesh, that is to the two together. 

2. Valentinus, after seeming, like Cyril, to deny bowing to Christ’s 
humanity, directly contradicts himself and makes the flesh 
to be co-bowed to with God the Word, and so differs from St. 
Cyril. See Cyril’s doctrine set forth in his Anathema VIII., 
page 109. Compare page 82, and again and again in note 183. 
On pages 82 and 109g Andrew of Samosata, the Nestorian, 
shows what the Nestorians understood Cyril to mean. Com- 
pare the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and its 
Anathemas IX. and XII., pages 109-112. See also under the 
different forms of συμπροσχυνέω in this Index. 

προσχυνούμενος, bowed to, in the expression of Cyril, Eis οὖν dpa πρὸς 
τῶν ἄνω πνευμάτων 6 προσχυνούμενος, 6 &x Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγος μετὰ 
τῆς ἰδίας σαρχὸς, 89, note, and in the same note on the same 
page, in the expression of Cyril against Nestorius, xa? προσ- 
χυνούμενον ἄνϑρωπον τῇ ἁγίᾳ xat ὁμοουσίῳ Τριάδι προστιϑεὶς, οὐχ αἱσ- 
χύνεται, See the English there. 

προσχύνει, worship, literally bow ἴο, in the language of the alleged 
Julius, on page 432, note, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀσωμάτως προσχύνει 
τὸν μετὰ TOD ἰδίου σώματος προστυνούμενον, ὡς ἕνα xat μόνον Yidy τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐξ αἰῶνος χαὶ εἰς αἰῶνας, See the English there. προσχυνεῖν, 
to bow to, and zpocxvve7r st, ἧς bowed to, 431, note, 432, note; 
where it is not clear whether both Natures of Christ are to be 
worshipped or not. The passage is from the alleged Julius. 
See the Greek and its English translation there; προσχυνεῖν, to 
bow, hence to worship because bowing is the most common act 


734 Act I. of Ephesus. 


of worship, for we bow when we pray, and when we perform 
the other acts of religious service; it occurs in the expression 
προσχυνεῖν δὲ ὁμολογεῖ σὺν τῇ θεότητι τοῦτον, 82, note; προσχυνεῖσθαι, 
to be bowed to, in the expression, σὺν τῇ θεότητι προσχυνεῖσθαι͵, 82 
note: προσχυνεῖσθαι, to be bowed to, 85, note: προσχυνεῖσθαι, in the 
expression of Theodore of Mopsuestia in favor of the relative 
worship of Christ’s humanity, anathematized by the whole 
Church in its Fifth Synod, xa! xar ἰσότητα Βασιλιχῆς elxdvos, εἰς 
πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου προσχυνεῖσθαι, 111, note. The English 
translation is found there. More of the Greek with its En- 
glish translation is found on pages 423, 424, note, where see 
them. xpooxvvetcbat, to be bowed to, hence to be worshipped, 89, 
note; St. Epiphanius on Heresy 79, Section 7, writes, ᾿Εν τιμῇ 
ἔστω Mapia, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ, καὶ Υἱὸς, χαὶ “Aytov Πνεῦμα προσχυνεῖσθω" 
τὴν Μαρίαν μηδεὶς προσχυνεῖτω, Let Mary be in honor, but let the 
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be bowed to, let no one 
bow to Mary; 184, note 438. προσκυνοῦν, worshipping, literally 
bowing, 433 note. The following is a Monophysite utterance, 
which is ascribed to Julius, Bishop of Rome, but falsely; it is 
found on page 429, note, ἀσεβοῦντες, ἄν te προσχυνῶσιν ὃν λέγουσι 
δοῦλον χαὶ χτιστὸν, ἂν τε μὴ προσχυνῶσι τὸν ἐξαγοράσαντα ἡμᾶς τῷ ἰδίῳ 
αἵματι Ἔ * *K ᾿Ανάγχη γὰρ αὐτοὺς δύο λέγοντας φύσεις, τὴν 
μὲν μίαν προσχυνεῖν, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν μὴ προσχυνεῖν, etc. 

The English of the above on the same page reads, “" 7hey are cmpious 
if they bow to him whom they assert to be a servant and a crea- 
ture; and tf they donot bow to Him Who redeemed us by His 
own blood * * * For those who assert Two Natures must, 
as a necessary consequence bow to the one, but not bow to the other.”’ 
But Athanasius answers this and still holds to two Natures 
by saying that he bowed to God the Word in his body as in 
a created temple. See the note matter on pages 98-101. προσ- 
χυνεῖν, to bow, in the expression, τούς παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τῇ χτίσει προσχυ- 
νεῖν ἡρημένους; 84, note. See the English there. προσχυνεῖν, Zo 
bow, in the expression on page 343, note, peta δὲ τὴν ἐνανθρώ- 
πησιν τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου, τουτέστι, μετὰ THY γέννησιν τοῦ Μυρίου ἡμῶν 
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μίαν φύσιν προσχυνεῖν, χαὶ ταύτην Θεοῦ σαρχωθέντος χαὶ 
ἐνανθρωπήσαντος. In English this is, ““,δήηο the Inman of God 
the Word, that is, since the birth of our Lord Jesus A nointed, hé 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 186. 


[Eutyches] dows to [but] one Nature, and that the Nature of 
God who took flesh and put on a Man.’ 

Eutyches, notwithstanding the above language, was a creature-server 
in fact, though not zz zntention, for he held that at the Inman 
Christ’s human nature was transubstantiated into Divinity, 
and then worshipped it as God with the Word. See on this 
whole topic, and as to what Eutyches was condemned for on 
pages 343-362. προσεχύνει in the expression of Athanasius on 
page 98, note, προσεχύνει yap τὸν θεὸν ἐν σώματι ὄντα, καὶ ἐγίνωσχεν. 
ὅτι Θεὸς ἦν, λέγων, Κύριε, etc. See the English there. προσχύ- 
νῆσον, ‘‘ bow to,’’ that is worship, 444, note 825. προσχυνούσης, 
in the expression of Cyril on page 91, note, προσχυνούσης τε 
Αὐτῷ χαὶ ἐξουσίας ἁπάσης δυνάμεώς te καὶ χυριότητος, See the En- 
glish there. 

The noun προσχύνησις, bow, bowing, worship, and its cases: προσχύνησις, 
bow, bowing, hence worship; in the following cases: μιᾷ zpooxv- 
νήσει, with one bow, with one worship, 82, note: μιᾷ προσχυνήσει, 
with one bow, with one worship, 87, note; σχετιχὴ προσχύνησις, 
relative worship, 219, note 563: μιᾷ προσχυνήσει, with one worship, 
said of the worship of the Three Persons of the Trinity, go, 
note: μιᾷ προσχυνήσει, with one worship, 106, note; explained in 
note 677, page 331; 332, note 679; 353, note, where the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council in its Anathema IX. approves him who. 
μιᾷ προσχυνήσει τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον σαρχωθέντα μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρχὸς προσ- 
χυνεῖ, that is him ‘‘ who bows with [but] one worship to God the 
Word infleshed within His own flesh.” προσχύνησις, bowing; Val- 
entinus, the Apollinarian, and therefore Two-Partite, tells 
how he co-worships Christ and His flesh, 431, note. See 7wo- 
Partite and Dimoerite in the General Index to this Work. 
προσχύνησιν, bowing, worship, 68, note; 69, note; 86, note; and 
116, note. See σχετιχὴν προσχύνησιν, on page 337, note; and τιμ- 
ητιχὴν προσχύνησιν, honorary worship, on page 337, note; τὴν προσ- 
χύνησιν, the bowing, the worship, 86, note. On page 120, note, 
Nestorius says, Xwpifw τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἑνῶ τὴν προσχύνησιν: ““7 
separate the natures, but I unite the bowing, that is the worship: 
τὴν Tapa πάσης τῆς χτίσεως δέχεται προσχύνησιν, ὡς ἀχώριστον πρὸς 
τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν,͵ ἀναφορᾷ θεοῦ xat ἐννοίᾳ πάσης 


αὐτῷ τῆς χτίσεως τὴν προσχύνησιν ἀπονεμούσης; that is, the Nestor- 


736 Act I. of Ephesus. 


ian Creed here quoted asserts that their merely human Christ 
‘‘ veceives bowing [that is, worship] from all the creation, as 
having the inseparable [external] conjunétion with the Divine 
Nature [of the Word], αὐ the creation giving him worship with 
reference to God and in consideration of God,’’ 337, note. ‘This 
is, in effect, relative worship. δύο προσχυνήσεις, two worships, 
116, note: προσχύνησις, bowing, hence worship, 325, note 665; 
664. 

On Relative Worship see under τιμητιχὴν προσχύνησιν. 

The adjective προσχυνητός and its cases: προσχυνητός͵ to be bowed to, 118, 
note; 628; προσχυνητόν, to be bowed to, 83, note; 84, note; od 
προσχυνητόν͵ not to be worshipped, said of Christ’s human body, 
100, note; and 351, note. Both these last references are to the 
same passage of St. Athanasius in his Zfzstle to Adelphius. 
As it is a very important one as bearing on the question as to 
whether he deemed the humanity of Christ to be worshippable 
or not, and as it is not accurately translated into English 
either in the Oxford version of Saint Athanasius’ Later 7 γεα- 
tises, or in the version of it in Athanasius’ Select Works and 
Letters, published by the Christian Literature Co., of New 
York City, I dwell a little on it here, limiting myself how- 
ever to the question as Zo zts true reading, for there is no space 
in an Index todo more. I proceed: 

οὐ προσχυνητόν͵ ““ zt [Christ’s body] zs xot to be bowed to,’’ that is, ‘‘ zs 
not to be worshipped,’ 100, note. This passage is wrongly 
edited in the Greek of the Benedictine edition of St. Athan- 
asius’ Epistle to Adelphius, and in Migne’s reprint of it in his 
Patrologia Graeca, and is wrongly translated in the Later 
Treatises of Saint Athanasius in the Oxford Library of the 
Fathers, and in the Christian Literature Company’s transla- 
tion of ‘‘ Athanasius’ Select Works and Letters,’’ because they 
followed that altered text. We wish to show here briefly the 
difference between the true text of the manuscripts and the 
false one of both the editions just mentioned, and between 
the true translation and the false one of both the English 
versions aforesaid. 

In columns 1080, 1081, tome 26, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, sec- 
tions 6 and 7 of St. Athanasius’ Afzstle to Adelphius, 1 find 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 737 


the following. Athanasius has just been arguing against the 
heretics who denied the Incarnation, and so refused to worship 
God the Word inside His flesh as in a temple; and then con- 
tinues in Sections 6 and 7 as follows: 

“6, ἘΠῚ *%& And let them [the heretics aforesaid] know that when we 
bow to the Lord in flesh, we do not bow to a creature, but to 
the Creator who has put on the created body, as we have said 
before [Hat γινωσχέτωσαν, ὅτι, τὸν Κύριον ἐν σαρχὶ προσχυνοῦντες, οὐ 
χτίσματι προσχυνοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν Kriotyy ἐνδυσάμενον τὸ χτιστὸν σῶμα, 
χαϑὰ προείπομεν]. 

“ἡ, But we were wishing that thy Piety would ask them the follow- 
ing question: When Israel were commanded to go up to 
Jerusalem to bow [that is, ‘‘to worship’’] in the temple of 
the Lord, where was the ark and over it the Cherubim of glory 
shadowing the mercy seat [Heb. ix., 5], did they do well or 
the contrary? If they did amiss, why were those who ne- 
glected that law liable to punishment ? For it is written that 
Whosoever should set at nought [that enactment] and would 
not go up, should be cut off from the people [Deut. xvi., 16]. 
But if they did well, and in that thing were well pleasing to 
God, why are not the abominable Arians, the worst of all 
heretics, deserving of many a death, because, while approving 
the former people [of God] for their honor for the temple, 
they [nevertheless] are not willing to bow to the Lord who is 
in flesh asinatemple And yet the ancient temple was con- 
structed of stones and of gold as a [mere] shadow; but when 
the Reality came, then the figure ceased, and, as the Lord 
said, there remained not one stone upon another that was not 
thrown down [Matt. xxiv., 2]. And when they saw the 
temple of stones, they did not think that the Lord who spoke 
in that temple was a creature, nor on the other hand did they 
make nothing of the temple and go far off and bow [that is, 
‘‘worship’’]; but they went into it and worshipped, accord- 
ing to the Law, the God who gave oracles from the temple. 
Since then this was so, why is the body of the Lord, the 
[body] truly all-holy and all-sacred, announced as glad tid- 
ings by the archangel Gabriel, and fashioned by the Holy 
Ghost, and made a garment of the Word, not to be bowed to’’ 


198 Act I. of Ephesus. 


[that is, ““ποέ to be worshipped’’|. 1 quote the Greek of the 
above of section 7 in full: 

7. ᾿Εδουλόμεθα δὲ τὴν σὴν εὐλάδειαν πυθέσθαι παρ’ αὐτῶν τοῦτο" ἡνέχα 6 ᾿Ισραὴλ 
ἐχελεύετο ἀνέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν Ιερουσαλὴμ προσχυνεῖν ἐν τῷ ναῷ Κυρίου͵ ἔνθα. 
ἡ χιδωτὸς καὶ ὑπεράνω ταύτης τὰ χερουδὶμ τῆς δόξης κατασχιάξοντα τὸ 
ἱλαστήριον, καλῶς ἐποίουν ἢ τοὐναντίον; Εἰ μὲν οὖν φαύλως ἔπραττον, 
πῶς οἱ τοῦ νόμου τούτου χατολιγωροῦντες ὑπὸ ἐπιτιμίαν ἐγίνοντο; [ἐ- 
γραπται yap" “Os ἐὰν ἐξουϑενήσῃ χαὶ μὴ avaby, ἐξολοϑρευϑήσετα: ex 
τοῦ λαοῦ" εἰ δὲ χαλῶϑδ ἔπραττον, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ εὐάρεστοι τῷ Θεῷ ἐγίνοντο, 
πῶς οὐχ ἀπολωλέναι πολλάχις εἰσὶν ἄξιοι vi μιαροὶ χαὶ πάσης αἱρέσεως: 
αἴσχιστοι Apetavot, ὅτι, τὸν πάλαι λαὸν ἀποδεχόμενοι διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν. 
ναὸν τιμὴν, οὐ βούλονται τὸν Κύριον ἐν σαρχὶ, ὡς ἐν ναῷ ὄντα, προσχυ- 
νεῖν; Καίτοι ὁ πάλαι ναὸς ἐχ λίϑων ἣν χαὶ γρυσοῦ χατασχευασϑεὶς, ὡς: 
σχιά" ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληϑείας, πέπαυται λοιπὸν 6 τύπος, χαὶ οὐχ ἔμεινε, 
χατὰ τὴν Κυριαχὴν φωνὴν, λίϑος ἐπὶ λίθον ἐν αὐτῷ, ὃς οὐ χατελύϑη. Καὶ 
οὔτε, τὸν ναὸν βλέποντες ἐχ λίϑων, ἐνόμιξον καὶ τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ ναῷ λαλοῦν- 
τα Κύριον εἶναι χτίσμα, οὔτε, τὸν ναὸν ἐξουθενοῦντες, ἀπερχόμενοι: μακχ- 
ρὰν προσεχύνουν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐρχόμενοι νομίμως ἐλάτρευον τῷ Θεῷ ἀπὸ 
τοῦ vaod χρηματίξοντι, Τούτου δὲ οὕτως γενομένου, πῶς τὸ σῶμα τοῦ 
Κυρίου, τὸ (11) πανάγιον xat πάνσεπτον ἀληθῶς, ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου 
Γαδριὴλ εὐαγγελισϑὲν, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος πλασθὲν, xat tod 
Λόγου γεγονὸς (12) ἔνδυμα, οὐ προσχυνητόν; 

The above Greek from Sections 6 and 7 of this Epistle is found, with 
the exception of a few slight corrections by Migne, word for 
word, on pages 915, 916 of the Second Part of tome 1 of the 
Benedictine edition of Athanasius, Paris, A. Ὁ. 1698. They 
are found word for word on page 161, tome 1 of the editio 
Coloniae of A. D. 1686, which on its title page, professes to 
follow the Paris edition of A. D. 1626. Professor Bright in 
his article on Athanasius in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of 
Christian Biography, towards the end, mentions what I take 
to be that edition, though there is a discrepancy of a year be- 
tween them, which is perhaps explainable. He writes thus: 
‘“The Greek text with a Latin version, Paris, 1627, ‘threw 
into the shade all previous editions,’ but the work was loosely 
executed.’? In the same article Prof. Bright adds, ‘‘ The 
first Greek edition was the Commelinian, at Heidelberg, in 
1600.”’ 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 139 


Now, before I go further, let me quote notes 11 and 12, referred to 
by the figures in the text just quoted. 

On the word τὸ above before the ‘‘(11),’’ the Benedictine note 11 in 
column 1081, tome 26 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca is as fol- 
lows: ‘‘Sic editi, sed manuscripti pro τό habent οὐ, quam par- 
ticulam Seguerianus infra ante προσχυνητόν omittit.’’ I translate 
this Latin into English. 

“*So the editions, but the manuscripts have οὐ [that is ‘‘zo?’’] instead 
of τό [that is ‘‘ ¢he’’], which particle the Seguier [manuscript] 
omits below before προσχυνητόν." This note is found as note 
“ἢ on page 915, in the Second Part of tome 1 of the Bene- 
dictine edition of Athanasius, Paris, A. D. 1698. 

The 12th note is of no doctrinal importance. It merely states that 
the Basle and English manuscripts of the Afzstle to Adelphius 
have ἐπλάσϑη χαὶ τοῦ Λόγου γέγονεν, instead of the above reading 
thacev, χαὶ tod Λόγου γεγονός, 

The Coloniae edition of A. D. 1686 does not contain the notes just 
quoted. So far asI know they were written for the Bene- 
dictine edition, and first appeared in it. It seems strange in 
view of the facts which they themselves state in note 11 that 
they did not conform their edition to the manuscripts. 

We see here then that some editor before the Benedictines, estimating 
Orthodoxy from his own creature worshipping standpoint, 
not from the standpoint of the Six Ecumenical Councils, and 
wishing to save St. Athanasius from what he looked upon as 
the heresy of denying worship to Christ’s humanity, therefore 
changed the text here. According to the Benedidtines’ own 
account in note 11 above; ‘‘¢he manuscripts’ (except, so far 
as appears, the Seguier), in the sentence above give the 
following Greek text: 

Τούτου δὲ οὕτως γενομένου, πῶς τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου οὐ πανάγιον καὶ πάνσεπ- 
tov ἀληϑῶς,͵ ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Γαδριὴλ εὐαγγελισϑὲν, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ’ 
ἁγίου Πνεύματος πλασθὲν. χαὶ τοῦ Λόγου νεγονὸς ἔνδυμα; Ob προσχυνη- 
τόν. . 

Hence we must translate this true text of ‘‘the manuscripts’’ as fol- 
lows and we have the correct reading, the genuine sense of 
the great Athanasius, God’s noble champion against Creature 
Worship, including Man-Worship and every other sort: 


140 Act I. of Ephesus. 


“«Since then this was so, why is the body of the Lord not truly all- 
holy and all-sacred, announced [asit was] as glad tidings by 
the archangel Gabriel, and fashioned by the Holy Ghost, and 
made a garment of the Word? IT IS NOT TO BE BOWED TO, 
[that is, ‘‘IT Is NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED.’’]’’ Then Athana- 
5113 goes on to show how God the Word used the hands and 
voice of that body as His instruments in working His miracles. 
The Latin translation of this place of Athanasius as on page 
161, tome 1 of the edit. Coloniae of 1686 is as follows: ‘‘ Quod 
cum ita se habeat, qui fieri posset, ut corpus Domini unde- 
quaque sanctissimum, a Gabriele archangelo evangelizatum, 
a Spiritu Sancto formatum, amiculumque Verbi Dei, non sit 
adorabile,’’ etc. I find exactly the same reading on page 104 
of the edit. Basileae, A. D. 1564, with the exception of one 
word, that is ‘‘ Gabriele’? which it has not. In the front of 
that tome of the Basileae edition of A. D. 1564, just before 
page 1, we are told that the Latin translation of St. Athana- 
sius’ Epistle to Adelphius in it is by Peter Nannius (Alcmari- 
anus) Professor of Latin in the College of Louvain. In 
Phillips’ Dictionary of Biographical Reference, London, A. D. 
1871, his date is A. D. 1500-1557. Lippincott’s Pronouncing 
Biographical Dictionary, calls him Manning, and tells us that 
he was born at Alkmaar, whence I presume comes his name 
of ‘‘ Alcmarianus’’ above. In the article on him in the WVow- 
velle Biographie Générale, tome 37, Paris, A. D. 1866, we are 
informed that Cardinal Granvelle made him a Canon of the 
Cathedral of Arras, and that he was a Latin in religion, and 
that he published St. Athanasius’ works in Latin at Basle in 
1556 in four volumes, and that that translation has been often 
reproduced. 


In the Benedictine edition of St. Athanasius, Paris, A. Ὁ. 1698, 
tome 1, ina Syl/abus in front, they state that Peter Nannius 
translated the Epistle to Adelphius in tome 1 of the Paris 
edition of Athanasius in A. D. 1627, and that the Benedictines 
in their own edition of the same Epistle in A. D. 1698, used 
the ‘‘ Codice Segueriano, et lectionibus Felckman. Codicum 
Basil. Anglic. Gobler, et τ. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions, Al 
eee τ ee 


Let us now, 1, ask, What is the external evidence for the reading of 
the Benedictines which makes this passage teach the worship 
of Christ’s humanity ? 

The answer given by themselves in the above note is “‘ edztions,’’ or 
“‘the editions’ (editi). So far as appears no manuscript favors 
the view, for though the Seguier manuscript lacks the οὐ, 
‘“not,”’ the Benedictine does not tell us its full reading. 

If, on the other hand, we ask, What is the externai evidence for the 
reading which makes this passage forbid the worship of Christ’s 
humanity, the Benedictines in the note above reply, ‘‘ the 
manuscripts.’’ (manuscripti). And the annotator seems to 
imply that the testimony of the manuscripts is opposed to 
that of the printed editions. For he writes, ‘‘So the printed 
editions, but the manuscripts have ‘of’ (οὐ) instead of ‘the’ 
(τό). 

We turn now, 2, to ask, what is the zzternal evidence as to the ques- 
tion whether St. Athanasius favored or disfavored the worship 
of Christ’s humanity in this passage ? 

‘We answer, On that point his witness is clear against it. For in 
speaking on that very topic, which runs through much of 
this Epistle, he writes at the end of section 6 of it, as just 
quoted: 

“‘And let them [that is the hereticsjust mentioned by him] know that 
when we bow to the Lord in flesh, we do not bow to a creature, 
but to the Creator Who has put on the created body, as we have 
said before.’’ 

In section 3, he teaches what is also plainly against Man- Worship 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία, St. Cyril calls it), as follows: 

“WE DO NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE—GOD FORBID! FOR SUCH AN 
ERROR AS THAT BELONGS TO THE HEATHEN AND TO THE 
ARIANS. But we bow to the Lord of the creation Who has put 
on flesh, that ἐξ to the WORD OF Gop.” See the note on page 
350 above and the context, and pages 98-101, where more 
matter to the same effect is found in the note. Particularly 
pertinent there is Athanasius’ commendation of the leper be- 
cause in his worship of Christ ‘‘ he was bowing [not to Christ’s 
humanity, but] fo the Creator of the Universe as in a created 
temple, [that is in His body]. and he was made clean.’? * * * 


742 Act I. of Ephesus. 


FoR THE CREATURE DOES NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE, NOR, 
ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THE CREATURE DECLINING TO 
WORSHIP ITS LORD BECAUSE OF THE FLESH ’’ [which he wore], 
etc. Here is worship of God the Word alone, not at all the 
humanity which he wore. This is clear from the whole passage. 
See it more fully on pages 98-101, note. ‘Towards the end of 
this Epistle Athanasius again professes that he worships God 
the Word asin flesh. Seethere. He terms his doctrine on that 
‘“‘the faith of the Catholic Church.’? We urges the Ariomani- 
acs, as he here terms them, as follows: 

‘*But if they are willing let them repent and no longer serve the 
creature contrary to the God who created all things. But if 
they wish to remain in their impieties let them alone be filled 
with them, and let them gnash their teeth like their father, 
the Devil, because THE FAITH OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH 
knows the Word of God to be Creator and Maker of all things, 
and [because] we know that Jn the beginning was the Word 
and the Word was with God { John I., 1], and we bow to Him 
made man for our salvation, not as made an Equal in an equal 
thing, the body, but as the Master Who has taken the form of 
the servant, and as the Maker and Creator, who has come in 
a creature, and in him has freed all things and has brought 
the world to the Father, and has made peace for all things, 
both those in the heavens and those on the earth. For so do 
we acknowledge that His Divinity is from the Father, and 
worship His Presence [that is His Divinity] in flesh even 
though the Ariomaniacs may burst themselves.”’ 

I quote a part of the above: 

ἡ πίστις τῆς Ιαϑολικῆς ᾿Εχχλησίας τίστην οἷδε τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον καὶ Anpt- 
ουργὸν τῶν ἁπάντων, καὶ οἴδαμεν, ὅτε ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ μὲν ἦν 6 Λόγος, καὶ 6 
Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν" γενόμενον δὲ Αὐτὸν καὶ ἄνϑρωπον διὰ τὴν ἡμετ- 
ἔραν σωτηρίαν προσχυνοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς Ἴ7σον ἐν ἴσῳ γενόμενον͵ τῷ σώματι, 

. ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Δεσπότην προσλαδόντα τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν, χαὶ δημιουργὸν 
χαὶ Kriaryy ἐν χτίσματι γενόμενον. * * * Obtw γὰρ καὶ τὴν Πατ- 
ριχὴν αὐτοῦ Θεότητα ἐπιγινώσχομεν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρχον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν 
προσχυνοῦμεν χἂν ᾽Πρειομανῖται διαῤῥηγνύωσιν ἑαυτούς, 

See the rest of the above quotation, in English, on page 101, note, 
above, and the context before it. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. [48 


προυσχυνητῶς, the adverb; προσχυνητῶς, in a way to be bowed to, in a way 
lo be worshipped, to be worshipped, 164, note 338. 

Remark. On pages 359, 360, above, and insubnotes ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘d 
on page 360, will be found two passages quoted by the learned 
Bishop Jeremy Taylor from St. Cyril of Alexandria, for the 
worship of the Divine Naturealone. I quoted Bishop Taylor’s 
Latin alone, because he does not give the Greek original. He 
quotes it from a Latin translation in the Paris edition of A. D. 
1604. I had some trouble in finding a copy of that edition, 
but finally did so in the Library of the Union Theological 
Seminary of New York City, which I was courteously and 
kindly permitted toconsult, for which I return my thanks to 
its Librarian, Rev. Mr. Gillett, as I do for similar favors tothe 
Librarians of the General Theological Seminary Library of 
the same city, to those of the Astor Library, and to those of 
Columbia College Library. I here summarize results as to 
the Greek reading of the aforesaid passages: 

The first passage quoted from Cyril of Alexandria by Jeremy Taylor, 
is found in tome Second of Cyril’s Works, Paris, A. D. 1604, 
page 159, inner column, C., and with its context is as follows; 
Cyril says of God the Word: 

‘‘Verus enim homo factus est nec idcirco verus Deus non est. Mer- 
ito igitur modo ut homo, modo ut Deus loquitur. - Quod 
autem haec vera sunt, ipsum audias ad Samaritanam, quasi 
Judaeorum loquentem, Vos, (inquit), adoratis quod nescitis, nos 
autem adoramus quod scimus, ut homo loquitur. Nonenim ex 
adorantibus Verbum est, sed cum Patre atque Spiritu Sandcto 
simul adoratur. Adorent, inquit, zpsum omnes angeli Det. 
Nemo autem ignorat, nulli prorsus naturae, praeterquam Dei, 
adorationem a Scriptura contribui. Scriptum est enim, Dom- 
inum Deum tuum adorabis et [pst solz servies. Sicut igitur 
Filius quamvis vere adorabilis sit, tamen ut homo adorat; sic 
quamvis Deus secundum Naturam sit, tamen Patrem ut homo 
Deum suum appellat. 

I translate this into English: 

‘‘For He [God the Word] was made very Man, and yet He has not 
thereby ceased to be very God. Therefore He justly 
speaks sometimes as Man, sometimes as Ged. And that these 


144 Aci δ. Ephesus. 


things are true hear Him saying as a Jew to the Samaritan 
woman, Ye, (says He), worship what ye know not, but we worship 
what we know, [John Iv., 22]; [here] He speaks as Man. 
For the Word is not a worshipper, but is worshipped together 
with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Let all God’s angels, 
Scripture says, worship Him [Heb. 1., 6]. But ΝΟ ONE IS 
IGNORANT THAT WORSHIP IS PERMITTED TO NO NATURE AT 
ALL BY SCRIPTURE BUT THAT OF Gop. [For it is written], 
Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou 
serve [Matt. Iv., 10.]. So therefore though the Son [that is. 
the Word] is verily worshippable, nevertheless as Man He 
worships: [and] so although He is God by Nature, neverthe- 
less as Man He calls the Father His God [John xx., 17].”’ 

The Greek original of the above is not found in the Paris edition 
of A. D. 1604. It contains nothing but the Latin rendering 
of it and of the passage here following. 

I find the Greek for the above Latin in column 117, tome 75 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, though the arrangement of Migne 
is different from the Paris edition of A. D. 1604. I quote it 
with more of the context: 

The heading of the Greek of the section here, translated, is: 

‘© That the Son is Consubstantial to the Father is proved by the fol- 
lowing text, 2 go to my Father and your Father, and [to] my 
God and your God,’ [John xx., 17]. Then, without any 
break, comes the following, 

"Ore τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μορφὴν 6 tod Θεοῦ Λόγος περιεδάλετο͵ καὶ διὰ τὴν 
ἁπάντων ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν ὑπάρχων ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, χαϑὰ γέγραπται, 
τεταπείνωχεν ἑαυτὸν, τότε δὴ χαὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος Eo ὅτε διαλέγεται, 
οὐδὲν ἀδιχούμενος εἰς τὴν δόξαν τὴν θεοπρεπῆ διὰ τούτου. Εἰ γὰρ ὄντως 
ἄνϑρωπος γέγονε, xat οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπέστη τοῦ εἶναι Θεὸς, xdv ὡς ἄν- 
Spwros γεγονὼς λέγη τὰ ἀνθρώπῳ πρέποντα, οὐ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ θεοπρεπὲς 
ἀξίωμα ζημιωϑήσεται" ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται πάλιν 6 αὐτὸς, φερομένης ἐπὶ τὴν 
οἰχονομίαν τῆς ἐν λόγοις ταπεινότητος, Ὅτι δὲ οἰχονομιχῶς ὡς ἄνϑρω- 
mos τὰ τοιαῦτά φησι, χαλῶς ὅπερ ἀνείληφε σχῆμα λόγῳ τε χαὶ ἔργῳ 


φυλάττων, ἐντεῦϑεν εἰσόμεθα. Λέγει γάρ που πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ Σαμαρείᾳ 


yovaixa τὸ ᾿Ιουδαϊχὸν ὑποχρινόμενος πρόσωπον" “" Ὑμεῖς προσχυνεῖτε ὃ 
οὖχ οἴδατε" ἡμεῖς προσχυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν. Καίτοι τῶν προσχυνουμέ- 


νων ὁ Υἱὸς, οὐ τῶν προσκυνούντων ἐστι, ““ Προσχυνησάτωσαν γὰρ αὐτᾷ, 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 745 


φησὶ, πάντες ἄγγελοι Beod,’’ Kat περὶ μὲν ἀγγέλλων ἣ ἑτέρας τινὸς τῆς 
zat’ αὐτοὺς τάξεως οὐδὲν φέρεται τοιοῦτο παρὰ ταῖς ϑείαις Γραφαῖς. 
O03 γὰρ ἀγγέλοις κελεύεταέ τις προσχυνεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνῳ θεῷ. Γέγραπται 
γάρ" ““ Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσχυνήσεις, xat Αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις." 
“Ὥσπερ τοίνυν προσχυνούμενος 6 Υἱὸς, προσχυνεῖν φησιν οἰχονομιχῶς, ὡς 
ἄνϑρωπος. οὕτως ὅταν Θεὸς χατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχων, Θεὸν ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Π1α- 
τέρα χαλῇ, πάλιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος οἰχονομιχῶς,. οὐ διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ εἶναι Θεὸς 
ἐχδληθήσεται" ἀλλ᾽ ὡς χατὰ φύσιν Υἱὸς, ἔσται δὲ ὁμοούσιος͵ 

I translate the above Greek into English, premising that I am not 
aware what the exact reading of the Greek was on which the 
above Latin rendering of A. D. 1604 was based, though, if we 
may judge from the Latin rendering, the translator must have 
had a different text, at least in places, before him. 

‘When the Word of God cast about Himself the form of the Man, 
and though He was zn the form of God as it is written, [Philip. 
ii., 6], nevertheless humbled Himself for the salvation of us 
all, then indeed He sometimes speaks even as Man, but in so 
doing He does no wrong to His God-befitting glory. For 
since He really became Man, and yet did not thereby cease 
from being God, even though as having been made Man He 
speaks the things which befit the Man, He will not thereby 
damage His God-befitting dignity, but He will still remain 
the same [Word], the humble expressions [that is His utter- 
ances as Man] being referred to the Economy [of our Redemp- 
tion]. And that He utters such expressions Economically 
as Man, and so guards well both in word and deed the [con- 
ditions of the human] form which He put on, we shall see 
thence. For He says somewhere to the woman in Samaria, 
where He speaks as a Jewish person, [or ‘‘ under a Jewish 
mask,’’ that is His body], Ye worship ye know not what: we 
worship what we know, though the Son [by ‘‘ Soxz’’ Cyril here 
means God the Word] is of those who are worshipped, not of 
those who worship. For He [the Father] says, Let all God’s 
angels bow to Him, [that is to God the Werd, as Cyril often 
teaches]. AND NOSUCH COMMAND IS FOUNDIN THE SCRIP- 
TURES OF GOD REGARDING [WORSHIPPING] ANGELS INDEED 
OR ANY OTHER ORDER LIKE THEM. for no one is com- 
manded to bow to angels, but to God alone. For it is written, 


{40 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou 
serve [Matt. iv., 10]. As therefore the bowed to Son [that 
is, God the Word] says that He bows Economically as Man, 
so when He [God the Word] being God by Nature, calls the 
Father His God, He speaks again EKconomically as Man, but 
is not thereby cast out of being God, but as Son by Nature, 
[that is as God the Word] He will be of the same Substance’’ 
as the Father. 


[ here contrast the Latin translation of part of the above and the 


Greek here: 


Latin translation. 

Nemo autem ignorat nulli pror- 
sus naturae praeter quam Dei, 
adorationem a Scriptura con- 
tribui. 


English translation of the above 
Latin. 


‘‘But no one is ignoran. that 
worship is given by Scripture to 
no Nature at all except that of 
God.”’ 


Greek original. 

Καὶ περὶ μὲν ἀγγέλλων ἣ ἑτέρας τινος 
τῆς xat’ αὐτοὺς τάξεως οὐδὲν φέρε- 
ται τοιοῦτο παρὰ ταῖς ϑείαις Γραφαῖς. 
Ob γὰρ ἀγγέλλοις χελεύεταί τις προσχυ- 


νεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνῳ θεῷ. 


English translation of the above 
Greek. 


‘‘And no such command is 
found in the Scriptures of God 
regarding [worshipping] angels 
indeed or any other order like 
them. Forno oneis commanded 
to bow to angels but to God 
alone.’’ 


The Greek differs in wording from the Latin here, but in sense they 
both agree in forbidding worship to any besides God alone. 
Jeremy Taylor’s second quotation, from Cyril of Alexandria’s 7he- 


saurus as in the Latin translation of Vol. II. of his works, 
Paris, 1604, page 158, inner column, C, I find in tome 75 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, in the Greek; I give it with the 
immediate context as in the Greek in columns 113, 116, where 
Cyril is answering an objection of followers of the heresiarch 
Eunomius; Eunomius’ objection to Christ’s Divinity there is 
as follows; it is prefaced by the following heading: “ὡς ἐξ ἀντι- 
θέσεως τῶν Edvoptov, Lx Objectione Eunomit is the Latin ren- 
dering in the parallel column there for the above heading. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. TAT 


The English of the Greek is ‘‘ As from an objection of Euno- 
mius,’’ Kunomius says, Et ὁμοούσιός ἐστι, φησὶν, 6 Υἱὸς τῷ Πατρὶ, 
τὶ μὴ καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἀγαϑὸς οὕτως ὡς 6 Πατήρ; Λέγει γάρ nov πρός 
τινα ὁ Χριστός" “" Τί με λέγεις ἀγαϑόν; Oddcis ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς 6 Θεός,» 
“Eva δὲ εἰπὼν, ἑαυτὸν ἔξω τέθειχεν, ὡς ἀγαϑὸν μὲν ὄντα καὶ αὐτὸν, οὐχ 
οὕτω δὲ ὥσπερ ἂν εἴη χαὶ 6 Πατήρ. 

That is the objection. NowcomesCyril’s ‘‘ Solution of the objection,’’ 
or, as the Greek there is, Πρὸς ταῦτα λύσις. It is as follows: 

Κύριον ἀποχαλούσης tov Υἱὸν τῆς Betas Γραφῆς, δώσεις ἄρα καὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι 
Κύριον, χαὶ τοῦτο χατὰ ἀλήθειαν, ἢ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀρνήση χαὶ τόδε. 
Εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐχ εἶναι Κύριον ἐρεῖς, τἀναντία φρονεῖς ταῖς ϑείαις Γραφαῖς 
χαὶ τῷ ταῦτα λαλήσαντι Πνεύματι. Συντεϑειμένος δὲ χαὶ φάσχων αὐτὸν 
εἶναι Κύριον, ἀσεδῶς ἐλεγχθήσῃ xat ύριον λέγων χαὶ προσχυνῶν ὃν οὐ 
φὴς ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ θεῷ χαὶ Πατρὶ, χαὶ xtiopate μᾶλλον ἢ θεῷ χατὰ 
φύσιν hatpevers, Τὸ γὰρ ἑτέρας ὑπάρχον οὐσίας παρὰ τὸν ὄντα θεὸν, 
οὐχ ἂν εἴη φύσει θεός, Kat τούτου μάρτυς 7 ϑεία λέγουσα Tpagy, 
“ Κύριος 6 Θεὸς ἡμῶν, Κύριος εἷς ἐστι" μία γὰρ ϑεότητος φύσις. 
Καὶ ὅτι ταύτῃ μόνῃ δεῖ προσχυνεῖν, ἀχούσῃ πάλιν. ‘* Κύριον τὸν θεόν 
σου προσχυνήσεις, xal αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. 

I translate this into English. Τί is as follows: 

“‘Eunomius,(who evidently has in mind, Christ’s words in Mark x.,18, 
‘“ Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that zs 
God,’’ and is trying to pervert them into a proof that the Word 
is not God, contrary to the plain assertion by the Holy Ghost 
in Johni.,1, that Heis), ‘‘If He says that the Son is of the 
same Substance as the Father, why is not He Himself also [the 
Son] as good as the Father [is]? For the Anointed One 
(6 Χριστός) says somewhere toa certain one, Why callest thou 
me good? There ἐς none good butone, thatis God.’’ And when 
he said “με, He put himself outside [of that One]; for 
though He Himself is good also, He cannot be so good as the 
Father is.’’ 

Cyril’s ‘‘ Solution of the above difficulty.’’ 

““Forasmuch as the Scripture of God calls the Son Zora, thou wilt 
therefore grant that He is Lord, and that in accordance with 
the truth, or thou wilt refuse to Him that title also as thou 
dost to the rest. For if indeed thou wilt say that He is not 
Lord, thou wilt hold an opinion which is contrary to the 


148 Ac I. of Ephesus. 


Scriptures of God and to the Spirit which has said that He is. 
But if thou agreest and sayest that He is Lord thou wilt be 
convicted of IMPIETY by applying [the title] Lord to him whom 
thou deniest to be of the same Substance as the God and 
Father, and by bowing to [that is by worshipping| him [that 
mere creature]; and [so] thou worshippest a creature contrary 
to Him whois God by Nature. For that which is of a sub- 
stance other than God can not be God by Nature. And the 
Scripture of God is a witness to this, for it says, Zhe Lord 
our God is [but] One Lord (Mark xii., 29; Deut. vi., 4); for 
the Nature of Divinity is [but] One: AND THAT WE MUST BOW 
TO THAT NATURE ALONE, hear again [the following words of 
Christ], Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only 
shalt thou serve,’’ [Matt. iv., το]. 

I have rendered μᾶλλον 7 above by ‘‘contrary to’’ as making a Greek 
idiom clearer to the English speaking reader. In Liddell 
and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1869, under Maia we read, 
“ μᾶλλονῆἢ * * * is often followed by οὐ (where οὐ seems 
redundant, ) because in all comparisons, the very notion of 
preference also implies rejection or denial’’. But if any man 
prefers ‘‘vather than God by Nature’’ or ‘‘in preference to God 
by Nature;’’ the sense will not be widely different, for it wil 
mean that the Eunominan prefers to worship his mere created 
Christ zz preference to the Orthodox uncreated Logos who is 
God by Nature. 

To conclude on this passage; Cyril in it teaches plainly again, 1, that 
all religious bowing, and, by parity of reasoning, every other 
act of religious worship, is prerogative TO THE DIVINE NATURE 
ALONE; andso is God’s name. 

And, 2, that to give bowing, or any other act of religious worship, 
or God’s name, to anything but the Divine Nature is an 
SENET ᾿ς 

3. This passage, which limits all worship to the Divine Nature 
alone, of course agrees with the passage of St. Cyril on pages 
79, 80, and with that on pages 225 and 226, in both which he 
denies worship to Christ’s humanity, and condemns it as 
wrong. In the passage last above, both in the Greek and in 
the English translation, he argues for the Divinity of the 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 549 


Logos because He is bowed to, on the ground that all bowing 
being prerogative to God alone, when it is ordered by God to 
be given to any one in Holy Writ, it proves that that one is 
God. See those two passages and the remarks there on them. 

St. Cyril of Alexandria in his 7hesaurus, Assertion X., col. 129 of 
tome 75, Migne’s Fatrologia Graeca, writes: 

El μόνῳ θεῷ τῷ κατὰ φύσιν τὸ προσχυνεῖσθαι παρά te ἡμῶν χαὶ ἀγγέλλων ὀφεί- 
hetat, ἑτέρῳ δὲ οὐδενὶ, χαὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν μὲν τέθειται" ““ Κύριον τὸν θεόν 


᾽ ἀγγέλοις δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα xehevet προσχυνεῖν τὸν ΥἹὸν, 


σοὺ προσχυνήσεις, 
xata τὸ, κ᾿ Ὅταν δὲ εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν Πρωτότοχον εἰς τὴν οἰχουμένην, λέγει" 
Kat προσχυνησάτωσαν Αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ." θεὸς ἄρα ἐστὶν 6 
προσχυνούμενος Vids, Πῶς οὖν ἔσται μία Θεότης, εἰ οὐχ ἔστι, xa? 
ὑμᾶς, ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρί; 

I translate: 

*‘Since bowing is due, both from us and from the angels, 
to God alone, Who is God by Nature, and to no other, 
and since the obligation to bow’’ [to Him] ‘‘has been laid 
upon us by the words, Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God’’ 
[Matt. iv., 10], ‘‘and the Spirit’’ [evidently used here in the 
sense of Dzvznzty, and not of the Holy Ghost specially, for it 
is the Father that speaks, Hebrews i., 6], ‘‘commands the 
angels to bow to the Son, as we see in the words, And when 
fle bringeth in the First Brought Forth into the inhabited world, 
fle saith, And let all God's angels bow to Him. 'The bowed-to 
Son is therefore God. How then will there be [but] One Di- 
vinity, if, as you say, He is not of the same Substance as the 
Father?” 

Here again Cyril argues that inasmuch as religious bowing is prerog- 
ative to God, and is commanded by the Father in Heb. 1., 6, 
to be given to the Word, therefore the Word must be God. 
The source of that argument is Hebrews 1., 6, 8, and the con- 
text, where the inspired Apostle Paulis proving, in effect, that 
the Son, that is the Word evidently, is no creature, no, not 
even a high creature like an angel, but is ‘‘ Chavadler of”’ the 
Father’s ‘‘ Substance,’’ is worshipped by dowzng, and is called 
God, in other words he is showing by all those facts that He 
is God. Hence we find Athanasius arguing from ‘‘ Charadier 
of His Substance,’’ Heb. i., 3, that the Word must be God; see 


=~] 
οι 
ς 


Ac I. of Ephesus. 


the Greek of pages 325, 494, of the Oxford translation of Ath- 
anasius’ 7yeatises against Arianism, as an example, though 
other mentions of it are found in that work, And the fact 
that religious bowing is prerogative to God, and that it is 
ordered by the Father to be given to the Word in Hebrewsi., 
6, is adduced by St. Athanasius, St Epiphanius, and by 
Faustin, a Presbyter of Rome, to prove that He must be God; 
see the passages on pages 234, 235, 240, 251 and 252, in Vol- 
ume I. of Vicaea in this Set. See in the Oxford translation of 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation in the Index of Texts, 
under Heb. i., 3, and especially Heb. i., 6, andin P. EH. Pusey’s 
edition of the Greek of Cyril, vol. vi., under those texts in the 
Index Locorum * * * Scrifturae, and in vol. vii., part 
I, pages 98-106, 193, 240, 241, 270, and in the Judex Locorum 
* * & Scripturae. In his Anathema VIII. St. Cyrilapproved 
by Ephesus, anathematizes every one who applies the name 
God to Christ’s mere created humanity, and much more does 
he anathematize any and every one who applies God’s name to 
any lesser creature, that is to any other creature, for Christ’s 
humanity is the highest and noblest of all created things. And 
the third Ecumenical Synod approved the doctrine that every 
act of worship is prerogative to God; see Man Worship, 
Worship, etc., in the General Jndex in this volume. 


But, alas! in the middle ages men were given to the relative worship 
of the Virgin Mary, martyrs, other saints, and alleged saints, 
crosses, relics, pictures, and graven images, and they could 
no longer argue that all acts of religious worship are preroga- 
tive to God; and that wherever in Holy Writ any of them is 
given to the Word, it proves that He must be God. But the 
Reformation has restored that truth tous. Let us guard and 
use it asa bulwark against all creature worship, for every kind 
of it damns the soul of the deceived and misled to the ever- 
lasting fires of hell. So God’s Word infallibly teaches, and 
the Holy Ghost led the Third Ecumenical Synod to formulate 
it in effect as the doctrine of the whole church, and to depose 
Nestorius for denying it and for his relative worship of 
creatures. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 51 


nnn aya EanS EES 


προσλήφει, taking to, in the expression ἐν προσλήφει προσώπου μόνου 
taking to a man’s person merely, 71, note. 

πρόσφατος Θεός, new god; ο1, note. See also προσχυνήσεις. πρόσφατος 
θεός, again used of Christ’s humanity, 92, note. See τέταρτος 
in this Index, andin that place. Cyril says that the Nestor- 
ian Worship of Christ’s humanity makes him ὦ fourth God 
and changes the Trinity into a Tetrad. See also the English 
and Latin of another passage of similar purport in the note on 
pages 92, 93; another of like meaning is found in the note on 
pages 93, 94, and pages 259, 260 of P. EH. Pusey’s translation 
of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 

πρόσωπον, Person, the connection of the two Natures of Christ in one 
Person, not two Persons, confessed by Nestorius, 158, note 
309. ‘That connection left the natures merely external to each 
other and denied the Incarnation, zdzd., and Nestorius else- 
where: προσώποις, Persons, 313, note 608. Πρόσωπον is used 
for God the Word alone, to the exclusion of His humanity, 
in the following expression in note 616, page 313, /t totya- 
ροῦν προσώπῳ τὰς ἐν εὐαγγελίοις πάσας ἀναϑετέον φωνὰς, ὑποστάσει 
μιᾷ τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρχωμένῃ. Κύριος γὰρ εἷς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, κατὰ τὰς 
Γραφάς. See more as to that use under ‘* Person’’ in the Gen- 
eval Index, and on page 649. προσώποις δυσὶν ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι, 
““two Persons, that is Subsistences, that is Bemngs,’’ 325, note 
666. Πρόσωπον, Person, in the following expression of Valen- 
tinus the Apollinarian, on page 431, where he is arguing 
against Timothy, the leader of the other wing of the Apolli- 
narians, the Cosubstancers, and explaining how his heresy 
differs from theirs: πολὺ δὲ ἠγνόησαν Τιμόϑεος͵ xat ὁ διδάσχαλος 
αὐτοῦ Πολέμιος, καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ προσώπου τοῦ 
θεοῦ Λόγου, καὶ τῆς σαρχὸς, etc. See the rest of this passage on 
page 431 with its English translation. Compare also under 
συμπροσχυνεῖται. 

πρότασιν, proposition, in the expression xara προτασίν τε καὶ λύσιν, II, 
note 12, where see the English. 

προτιμῶ, 1 prefer, 415. 

Πρωτότοχον, τόν, the First Brought Forth, 89, note, thrice: Πρωτοτοχον, 
in the expression of Cyril, where he explains the τὸν Πρωτότοχον, 
of Hebrews i., 6, τότε γὰρ τέτοχε, χαὶ ὡς πρωτεύων ἐν Tact, νοεῖταξϊ 


=~] 
Or 
bo 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


πρωτότουχος, 8g, note: See under προσχυνῶ, and note 582, pages 
225, 226, where as above, Cyril explains the expression to 
mean God the Word: note 589, page 228. 


My 
ad 


σαρχωϑέντα, put on flesh, 431, note; 456, note 916. On the difference 
in meaning between σαρχόω and ἐνανϑρωπέω, see the article 
next below. See also under ἐνανϑρωπήσαντος in this Index. 

σάρχωσις, Inflesh, that is Zucarnation, a case of: σάρχωσιν, putting on 
Jiesh, 458, note 924, where the Word which means /zcarnation, 
Infiesh, is perverted into a denial of it by Nestorius. On the 
same page that heresiarch twists /zman, (in Greek ἐνανϑρώπη- 
σιν), into a denial of the Inman of God the Word’s real Sub- 
stance in His humanity. Compare note 922 there. Eutyches 
includes γέννησιν, that is dzrth, in the Jnman, that is in the /z- 
flesh (cdpxwors) on page 343, note. See also under φύσις in 
this Index. The difference between σάρχωσις, Lnflesh, and 
ἐνανθὰρώπησις, Inman, is that the former asserts merely the putz- 
ting on of flesh, which is only part of a man, whereas the lat- 
ter affirms the putting on of a whole man, that is of body, 
soul, and mind, and is therefore much the stronger expression. 
Just the same difference exists between σαρχόω, 7 put on flesh, 
and ἐνανϑρωπέω, 7 put ona man. Compare also ἐνανϑρωπήσεως 
in this Index. 

σάρξ and its cases: σάρχα, flesh; see under φυχῇ; and 80, note; 81, note; 
and 633, under μετά, and 85, note. See under Συνουσιασταί in 
this Index. 

The following are Apollinarian heresies on Christ’s flesh, some held 
by the Valentinian wing, others by the Timothean wing, page 
105, note; Christ’s flesh was οὐχ ἐξ Mapias ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ 
οὐσίας, "EE Eavtod μεταποίησας σάρχα 6 Λόγος. EE ἀρχῆς ἐν τῷ 
Υἱῷ τὴν σαρχώδη ἐχείνην φύσιν εἶναι, ἄχτιστον χαὶ ἐπουράνιον λέγοντες 
τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σάρχα. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τὸ σῶμα, Seethe English there. 
Χριστὸς οὐ yoixds, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπουράνιος, 105, note. See also the Latin on 
that page. See more on Apollinarian views as to Christ’s 
flesh or body on pages 104, 105 above. See more on the Val- 
entinian view of Christ’s flesh and its worship, and on the 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 158 


ee 


Timothean opinion, on page 431, note; 432, note, where differ- 
ent errorson Christ’s flesh are mentioned. (On the Nestorian 
view as to Christ’s flesh, its worship, etc., see σὸν τῇ σαρχί, Zo- 
gether with the flesh, 117, note; and Cyril and Nestorzus in the 
General Index in this volume). 

χατὰ σάρχα, according to the flesh, as vegards the flesh, 128, 
note 195: ἐν τῇ capxt, in the flesh, 457, note 919: ἰδίαν 
(cdpxa), own, or peculiar flesh, 240, note. χατὰ σάρχα θάνατον, 
death according to flesh, 241, note. τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρχα, FTts 
own flesh, 272, subnote. μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας capxds,‘* with’? or 
‘within His own flesh,’ 323, note 662: see also under 
μετά. διὰ σαρχός, by flesh, that is zz flesh, 458, note 926. 
xata σάρχα, according to flesh, 459, note 935, twice. 7 σάρξ, 
the flesh; 477, note 1018. See ἔδιον, τὴν σάρχα, the flesh, 474, 
note 1007, where the Eucharist is the topic. τὴν capxds, of 
the flesh, 474, note 1007. | 

The verb σέδω and different forms from it; o¢6, 7 worship, in the ex- 
pression, σέδω αὐτὸν, ὡς τῆς Taytoxpdtopos etxdva Θεότητος, 83, 
note; and in the notorious profession by Nestorius of his rela- 
tive Man-Worship, and Cyril’s refutation of it on page 85 and 
after; I quote Nestorius as there, Διὰ τὸν φοροῦντα, φησὶ, τὸν 
φορούμενον σέδω" διὰ τὸν χεχρυμμένον προσχυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον, 85, 
note; and σέδω in the expression on page 86, note, Ata τὴν τοῦ 
βασιλέως ψυχὴν σέδω τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὸν χεχρυμμένον προυσχυνῶ τὸν 
φαινόμενον. See also under προσχυνῶ and its derived forms and 
προσχύνησις. σέδωμεν τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ παντοχράτορι θεῷ συμ- 
προσχυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον, page 464, note 954: see the English in 
the text on the same page. σέδειν, to worship, 88, note. See 
also under ἀνϑρωπολάτρης in this Index. 

σεπτῶν in the expression, σεπτῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστηρίων, august mysteries 
of the Anointed One, \xxviii., note ὁ" as 

σχηνόω, to tabernacle, to dwell, 343, note. 

στολή, a garment, said of Christ’s flesh by an Apollinarian, 431, note. 

The noun σχέσις and its cases: σχέσις, velatzon, 96, note: σχέσει, by re- 
lation, 223, note; 256, note; 459, mote 935; 533; σχέσιν, relation, 
used in a heretical sense by the Nestorians in the following 
expressions, χατὰ σχέσιν, by relation, that is relatively, 63, note; 
65, note; and xara γε τὴν ἔξωθεν σχέσιν, according to the external 


754 Ac I, of Ephesus. 


relation, 84, note; σχέσιν, relation, 96, note; 651, 652, twice; 
σχέσει, by relation, 95, note, and 96, note. 

The adjective σχετιχός and casesof it: szetexyv, in the expression, οὐ σχετ- 
wi», not relative, οὐ oz. ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐνοίκησιν, Fe has not made His 
indwelling relative, 66, note, and page 637; σχετιχή and σχετιχήν, 
96, note: 651; 652, twice. ὡς χατὰ μέθεξιν σχετιχήν, as by rela- 
ative participation, 218, note 563: σχετιχὴ προσχύνησις, relative 
worship, 219, note 563, twice. σχετιχός, relative, Pusey’s mis- 
translation of, 219, note 563, thrice: σχετιχήν, relative, 223, note; 
256, note; 459, note 935; 532, text, and note “fa? there; 
Pusey, who mistranslates it, could render it correctly when he 
would, 532, note ‘‘a,’’ σχετιχήν, relative, 533. Compare under 
συνάφεια, and ἐνοίχησις: σχετιχήν, relative, 651; 661. 

The adverb σχετιχῶς: σχετιχῶς, relatively; 63, note: 67, note; οὐ σχετιχῶς, 
not relatively, 66, note: σχετιχῶς συνῆφϑαι τῷ Λόγῳ, relatively 
conjoined to the Word, 67, note. σχετιχῶς relatively, 80, note; 
81, note: 459, note 935. Compare under συνάφεια, σχετιχῶς,͵ 
velatively, 96, note. Pusey’s mistranslation of those terms to 
blunt the edge of their testimony against his own relative wor- 
ship, and against Roman and Greek mediaeval and modern 
relative creature worship, which are Nestorian, 96, note. 
Compare 532, note ‘‘a’’ there. See συνάφεια, and συμπροσχυνέω: 
σχετιχῶς, 256, note. σχετιχῶς, relatively, 532, and 651, 652, 
twice. 

συγχρασει, θεοῦ μὲν ἐνανϑρωπήσαντος, ἀνϑρώπου δὲ ϑεωθέντος, 441, note,. 
where see in the text the English translation. 

συγχροτηϑῆναι, to be celebrated; 483, note 1027. συγχροτουμένην, celebrated, 
46, note. 

συγχρηματίξει Θεός, co-called God, 467, note 966. 

συχοφαντίας, Slander, 156, note 298. 

svpbatvoy, upshot, 452, note 894. 

σύμδολον, A Symbol, A Creed, xxii., note “τ᾿ xxiii., note “‘e,” 
σύμδολον, Creed, that of Nicaea, 129, note. See ἔχϑεσιν, Exfos- 
ition or Statement; and 133, note; 572. Theodosius, Bishop of 
Mastaura, says of the Faith of Nicaea, ᾿Εμμένω καὶ συντίϑεμαι, 
συμφώνῳ οὔσῃ, ὡς ἔφην, τῇ τῶν Πατέρων φυχωφελεῖ διδασκαλία, 139, 
note. See also the long Greek passage in note 256, page 147, 
which praises the Faith of Nicaea and that set forth in Cyril’s 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 755 


Shorter Epistle to Nestorius; as does also note 267, page 
149: τῷ Συμδόλῳ͵ the Creed of Nicaea, note 267, page 149: Tod: 
Lvp6ohov, of the Creed of Nicaea, 152, note 281. 

ovpbokov, the Eucharistic Symbol, and σύμδολα, the Eucharistic Symbols, 
ovp6ohov, Symbol, 279, note. Etvyap μὴ ἀπέθανεν ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς, τίνος σύμ- 
ὄολα τὰ τελούμενα; ‘* For if Jesus did not die, of whom are the 
consecrated things Symbols?’ 237, note: Σωτηρίου πάθους ἀπόῤ- 
ῥητα ovp6oia, that is ‘‘ the secret Symbols of the Saviour’ 5 suffer- 
ing,’’ 237, note. τὰ μυστιχὰ σύμδολα, ‘‘ the mystic Symbols,’’ in 
the Lord’s Supper; 282, note: ta ὁρώμενα σύμὄολα, “" the visible 
Symbols’ of the Eucharist. 

συμπροσχυνεῖν, to co-bow to, to co-worship, 84, note; and 86, note, in the 
following expressions, χαὶ ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῷ συμπροσχυνεῖν ὁμολογῶν. 
See σχέσις, σχετιχή, and συνάφεια, Andrew of Samosata, the Nes- 
torian, states St. Cyril’s position as follows, λέγων [Cyril] αὐτὸν 
μετὰ σαρχὸς δεῖν προσχυνεῖσϑαι, ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσχυνεῖσϑαι τῇ 
ϑεότητι τὴν σάρχα, “" He [Cyril] says that He [the Son] must be 
bowed to within flesh but forbids the flesh to be co-bowed to with 
fTis Divinity,’’ 225 note. See also under προσχυνῶ, where this 
passage is found again, and on pages 97, 98, note, where some 
of the words before it are given. Compare pages 102-128, 
note, especially page 117 where still more of the context is. 
quoted. Itis found again on page 356, note. I quote the 
Greek as on page 117, where more of it is given, φαμὲν ὡς πάνυ: 
ἐπιστημονιχῶς ἐπέσχηφε [Cyril of Alexandria] τοῖς σὺν τῇ σαρχὶ 
προσχυνεῖν τῷ ἑνὶ χαὶ τῷ αὐτῷ Υἱῷ βουλομένοις, ὡς ἑτέρου τινὸς ὄντος: 
παρὰ τὸ Σὺν τοῦ Meta: ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἔϑηχεν, ὡς προεέρηται, λέγων αὐτὸν 
μετὰ σαρχός, etc., as above. I translate this part: 

** In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearnedly and 
very unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the One and 
the same Son together with His flesh as though the [preposition] 
μετὰ were something other than the [preposition] σόν, which very 
assertion he himself has made, as has been said before,’ then 
comes as above ‘‘ [by] A7zs saying,’’ etc. Compare page 633, 
where part of the passage is quoted again, though συμπρυσχυ- 
νεῖσϑαι and the rest of it should form part of the quotation there. 
cuprposxuvets, thou co-bowest, that is co-worshippest, 82, note. 
σημπροσχυνεῖσθαι, to be co-bowed to, in the expression, ὃν τῇ θεό- 


156 


Act I. of Ephesus. 


THT συμπροσχυνεῖσθαι δεῖν ἀνοήτως ἔφασχεν, 83, note: and τὸ συμπροσ- 
χυνεῖσθαι χαὶ συνδοξάξεσϑαι, the expression co-bow and co-glorify, 
page 97, note; and 117, note; in both these cases the Nestor- 
ian Andrew of Samosata speaks and explains his sense of 
those expressions. Noteworthy is Cyril’s Anathema VIIL., 
adopted by the whole Church at Ephesus, where συμπροσχὺν- 
εἶσθαι occurs. I quote it all: EY tes τολμᾷ λέγειν τὸν ἀναληφϑέντα 
ἄνϑρωπον συμπροσχυνεῖσϑαι δεῖν τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ καὶ συνδοξάξεσϑαι καὶ 
συγχρηματίξειν Θεὸν, ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ, τὸ γὰρ Σὺν ἀεὶ προστιϑέμενον 
τοῦτο νοεῖν ἀναγχάσει" χαὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον μιᾷ προσχυνήσει τιμᾷ τὸν 
᾿Εμμανουὴλ, καὶ μίαν Αὐτῷ τὴν δοξολογίαν ἀναπέμπει, χαϑὸ γέγονε σὰρξ 
6 Λόγος, ἀνάϑεμα ἔστω; that isin English, as in the text of pages 
331, 332, where see it. συμπροσχυνεῖσϑαι, to be co-bowed to, 571; 
598. συμπροσχυνεῖται, ἐς co-bowed lo, page 225, note 581. σὺμ- 
προσχυνεῖται, in the expression on page 431 of Valentinus, the 
leader of the milder wing of the Apollinarians, 7 σὰρξ τῷ Λόγῳ 
συμπροσχυνεῖται, the flesh ἐξ co-bowed to with the Word. See the 
context where, illogically enough, he precedes the above state- 
ment by the contradictory one, οὐ πρὸς σάρχα ἡ προσχύνησις, the 
bowing ts not to be done to the fiesh. συμπροσχυνούμενον, co-bowed 
to, in Nestorius’ expression, σέδωμεν τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ παν- 
τυχράτορι Θεῷ συμπροσχυνούμενον ἄνϑρωπον, go, note. This place 
is found with some of the context on page 464, note 954, as 
follows, where Nestorius says, ἀσύγχυτον τοίνυν τὴν τῶν φύσεων 
τηρῶμεν συνάφειαν' ὁμολογῶμεν τὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεόν: σέδωμεν τὸν τῇ 
Sern συναφείᾳ τῷ παντοχράτορι Θεῷ συμπροσχυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον. In 
English this is, ‘‘ Therefore let us keep the unmixed conjoin- 
ment of the [Two] Natures. Let us confess the God ina Man. 
LET US WORSHIP THE MAN CO-BOWED TO WITH THE ALMIGHTY 
Gop IN THE DIVINE CONJOINMENT.’’ συμπροσχυνούμενον, in the 
expression τὸ γὰρ ἑτέρῳ συμπροσχυνούμενον, 82, note, where Cyril 
is speaking, ‘‘ For that which ἐς co-bowed to with another thing,” 
etc. συμπροσχυνοῦντες, in the expression, οὐχ ws ἄνϑρωπον συμ- 
πρυσχυνοῦντες TO Λόγῳ ἵνα μὴ τοῦτο εἰς φάντασμα TapetoxptveTat, διὰ 
τοῦ λέγειν τὸ Σύν: ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἕνα χαὶ τὸν αὐτὸν προσχυνοῦντες, ὅτε μὴ ἀλ- 
λότριον τοῦ Λόγου τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, 79, note: the first six words are 
quoted again on page 356, note. The above Greek and the 
most important part of the context is found in note 183, page 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 57 
ee 


79. The English translation constitutes the text of pages 79- 
85, where see it. ‘This passage is most important and wholly 
authoritive as being part of a document which was approved 
and adopted by the whole Church at Ephesus. 

σύν, together with, 97, several times; see also μετὰ σαρχός͵ and μετά 
wherever it occurs with the genitive in this Index, and the 
different forms of προσχυνῶ, 7 bow to, and συμπροσχυνέω, 7). co- 
bow to, and σύν, page 108, note, and 117, note, several times; 
σὺν τῇ σαρκί, together with the flesh, 117, note; and 226 note 
583; 90», together with, 598; 631, twice; 634. 

συνάπτω; forms of ; συνάπτει, conjoins, 84, note. συναφϑέντες, conjoined, 
in the expression of St. Athanasius, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τῷ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ Λόγῳ 
συναφϑέντες; we, as having been conjoined with the Word Who 
came out of heaven, 421, text. See note "47 there on that use 
of συνάπτω. 

συνάφεια, Conjunction, cases of in the .o.uowing expressions; ouvdgetay, 
Conjunction, in the expression, svvdgea, * * * τὴν 
ἐξωθέν te καὶ σχετιχήν, etc., 66, note; 68, note;). 60, note: 1637: 
see the English there. διὰ συνάφειαν δὲ σχετιχήν, because of a 
relative Conjunétion, 85, note. Compare σχετιχήν, σχέσιν, and 
σχετιχῶς: and in Nestorius’ expression, on page 89, note, καὶ 
τότε TH τοῦ Θεοῦ συναφείᾳ Oeohoyet τὸ φαινόμενον" ἵνα μηδεὶς ἀνϑρω- 
πολάτρην τὸν Χριστιανὸν ὑποπτεύῃ. See the English there. Com- 
pare under ἐνοίχησιν. συναφείᾳ in Nestorius’ profession of Man- 
Worship on page go, note, σέδωμεν τὸν τῇ Θεία συναφείᾳ τῷ παντο- 
xpatopt Θεῷ συμπροσχυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον. See the English there. 
συνάφεια, Conjunction, in Nestorius’ profession of worshipping, 
τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφειᾳ τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ συμπροσχυνούμενον ἄνϑρωπον, “" the 
Man co-bowed to in the divine Conjunétion with God the γα," 
118, note; συναφεέᾳ, by conjunction, 459, note 935; σχετιχὴν συνά- 
φείαν, Relative Conjunétion, 118, note. See συμπροσχυνέω and 
σχέσις, σχετιχή. Cyril on page 118, note, rebukes Andrew of 
Samosata, one of his Nestorian antagonists, for the language 
last cited above and tells him, ἔδει γὰρ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν, Σέδωμεν τὸν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον γενόμενον ἄνϑρωπον χαὶ γρηματιζοντα Θεὸν χαὶ ἐν ἀνϑρω- 
πότητι προσχυνούμενον, ὅτι χαὶ φύσει θεός ἐστι χαὶ ἐχ Θεοῦ πέφηνε 1|ατ- 
pos, Seethe English there. Nestorius uses συνάφεια to express 
his heresy, the root from which all his other heresies proceed, 


758 Act I. of Ephesus. 


of a mere external connection of Christ’s two Natures as 
opposed to the truth that God the Word’s Eternal Substance 
dwells in that Man whom It put on in Mary’s womb, συνα- 
getas, tis, of the Conjunction; 81, note; 459, note 935. συνά- 
gevav, Conjunction; 82, note; 219, note 565. Nestorius 
confesses the connection of the two Natures for [or ‘‘in’’] a 
conjoinment of one Person, τὴν τούτων εἰς ἑνὸς προσώπου auvagetay, 
158, note 309: explained, 163, note 333; 163, note 334. ws 
ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν Belay φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ας having the 
inseparable [external] conjunétion with the Divine Nature,” 
Nestorian language, 337, note. συνάφειαν, conjunction, 464, 
note 954. 

συνδοξάζω, 7 co-glorify; see under συμπροσχυνῶ and its derived forms; 
and 97, note, TO συμπροσχυνεῖσϑαι xat συνδοξάξεσθαι, 

συνδραμεῖν, CONCUY, Ζ0- 7471, 40, note. 

συνεδρεύων, co-sitting, 117, note. συνήδρευσεν, 118, note: see under μετὰ 
σαρχός, 

συνεδρίου, assembly, 189, note 450. 

συνεργόν, co-worker, 466, note 965. 

σύν ἑτέρῳ, together with another, 89, note. 

συνήγορος, co-speaker or advocate, 81, note; 82, note. 

συνιστάμενοι, Co-standers, 246, note. 

συνόδου, assembly, 189, note 450. 

Συνουσιασταί, Co-substancers, 104, note; see σῶμα; Leontius writes that 
they held, ὁμοούσιον τὸ éx Maptas σῶμα τῇ τοῦ Λόγου Θεότητι, 104, 
note, where see the English. Athanasius says that they held 
of Christ’s flesh, that it is a σάρχα προαιώνιόν τινα xat συνουσιω- 
μένην, 105, note, where see the English. See their views fur- 
ther explained in the note on page 431, where their leader, 
Timotheus, is mentioned, and where Athanasius is cited by 
the Apollinarian Valentinus, as saying that the Co-substancers. 
came out of Hades. See also page 432, note. 

Σύνταγμα, that of Ralle and Potle, 249, note. 

συνῳδά, in consonance, 146, note. 

σῶμα, body, 128, in the expression, ἔδιόν te σῶμα τὸ ἡμῶν ἐποιήσατο, 128, 
note 190: see the English in the text of pages 100, 101, éav- 
τοῦ σῶμα, 273, subnote ‘‘7:’’ The English is on the same page. 
On the Timothean error that the body taken from Mary is 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 759 


Consubstantial with the Divinity see under ὁμοούσιον, and on 
pages 431, 432, note. σώματος in the expression of Gregory 
of Nazianzus, ἀμιγῆ σώματος καὶ τῶν ὅσα σώματος, 440, note 805. 
See the English translation in the text there. 


Τ 


τὰ αὐτὰ, the same things, 143, note. 

τελειωϑείς, made perfect, made complete, 469, note 977; compare note 
986, page 470. 

τέταρτος, a fourth (Person); said of the Nestorian belief as to Christ’s 
humanity in the expression of Cyril to Nestorius on page 92, 
note, πῶς ἐν ϑρόνοις ὁρᾶται, τῆς ἀνωτάτω ϑεότητος τέταρτος ὥσπερ τις 
ἡμῖν μετὰ τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα πρόσφατος θεὸς ἀναδεδειγμένος; οὐ καταπέ- 
φρίχας χοινὸν ἄνϑρωπον, τῇ κτίσει τὸ σέδας ἐπινοῶν; a passage of 
similar purport is given in Latin and English in the note on 
pages 92, 93; and another on pages 93, 94 in the same note. 
τέταρτος, a fourth Person again: on page 379, note, we find, 
εἰ δὲ δή τις Aéyot συχυφαντῶν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, ὅτι, val, χεχάϑιχεν ἐν δεξιᾷ 
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἰδιχῶς ἄνϑρωπος συνημμένος τῷ Λόγῳ, χατὰ μόνην τὴν 
ἰσότητα τῆς ἀξίας" οὐχέτε μονογενῶς εἶναί φησι τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τὸν 
ἀνωτάτω χαὶ μόνῃ καὶ αὐτῇ πρέποντα ϑρόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη τις ἡμῖν τέταρτος 
οὑτοσὶ, πρόσφατός τε καὶ γενητὸς ἐπεισχρίνεται θεὸς, μετὰ τὴν ὁμοούσιον 
χαὶ ἁγίαν Τριάδα. In English this is, ‘‘ But now if any one by 
way of slandering the truth would say, Yes, He has sat down 
at the right hand of the Father merely as a man conjoined to 
the Word in an equality of dignity only; no longer does 
he say that the loftiest throne above belongs to the Nature of 
the Holy Trinity only, even that throne which is prerogative 
to It alone [or ‘‘ which befits It alone’’] but there is at once 
brought in to us this here some fourth Person, a new and 
created God, after the Consubstantial and Holy Trinity.’’ 
Pages 79-98, and indeed all of note 183 contain important 
utterances of Cyril against Tetradism. 

Athanasius is as strict as Cyril, his disciple and follower, in exclud- 
ing Christ’s humanity from being reckoned as a part of the 
Divine Person of God the Word, and from being a part of the 
Trinity. Forin Montfaucon’s Collectio Nova Patrum, tome 2, 


760 | Act I. of Ephesus. 


Paris., A. D. 1707, page 106, and also on page 216, tome v. of 
Galland. Biblioth. Vet. Patr., Venet., A. Ὁ. 1769, and in col. 
1324, of tome 26, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, St. Athana- 
sius gives the following judgment, which is interesting as 
against Tetradism; that is, against the notion that the Divine 
Person of the Word received any addition to its Personality 
when the human nature was added to It. In other words he 
includes, like Cyril, nothing in the Second Person but the 
Logos. ‘“H μέντοι Τριὰς, καὶ λαδόντος σῶμα ex Mapias τοῦ Λόγου, 
Τριάς ἐστιν οὐ δεχομένη παραϑήχκην οὐδὲ ἀφαίρεσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀεὶ τελεία 
ἐστί, Kat ἐν Τριάδι μία Θεότης ἐπιγιν ὠώσχεται. 

In English this is, 

** The Trinity, even since the Word has taken a body from Mary, ts 
certainly [only] a Trinity, and receives no addition and suffers no 
subtraction, but ts always complete, and [only] one Divinity ts 
acknowledged in a Trinity.’’ 

In columns 1321, 1322, tome 26 of Migne’s Patvologia Graeca, the 
above fragment of Athanasius is set down as from ‘“‘ Royal 
Codex 2280, of silk (or ‘‘cotton’’), of the XIVth Century, 
page 13.’’ Nothing is said in Migne against its genuineness. 
It is not given there among the doubtful nor amony the spur- 
ious works ascribed to St. Athanasius. ‘They are in tome 28 
of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 

Here the human nature ,which God the Word took in Mary’s womb 
is made no part of His Aypostasis, that is Divine Substance, 
that is Azs Divine Person, but only its wrapping, its Zemple, 
as Athanasius terms it on pages 98-101. 

The fully developed Ecumenical use and Ecumenically defined sense 
of the expressions, ἐχ δύο φύσεων, from Two Natures, ἐν δύο gb- 
σεσι, 72 Two Natures, πρόσωπον, Person, and ᾿γπόστασις, Substst- 
ence, Substance, is found in the utterances of the Six World 
Synods only, that isin their Two Creeds, their Definitions, 
and the Epistles approved by them. Especially definite on 
such themes are the XIV. Anathemas which form part of the 
Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. God willing,: 
they will all appear in this work. The Creeds and parts of 
the rest may be found in Greek in Hahn’s &Szbliothek der Sym- 
bole, Second Edition, Breslau, 1877. Anathema V. of the 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 7161 


Fifth World Council, has what is as strong as Athanasius 
above, namely, Udte yap προσϑήχην προσώπου ἤγουν ὑποστάσεως 
ἐπεδέξατο ἡ ἁγια Τριὰς χαὶ σαρχωϑέντος τοῦ ἑνὸς τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, 
Θεοῦ Λόγου, that is, “2:07 the Holy Trinity has received no αὐ- 
dition of a Person, that ts of a Subsistence [or ‘’ Substance’? | 
even though one Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Word, has 
put on flesh.’ 

τετιμημένον, honored, 67; note: see under ᾿7σότητι. 

τέτοχε, Fe brought forth, or caused to be brought forth; see under Πρω- 
totoxoy in this Index. 

τετράδιον, four sheets, a tetrad, 449, note 880, and 450, note 480. 

τετρασσά, a four, a quaternion, 450, note 880. 

τεύχεσι, 771 Sections, 450, note 880. 

τεχϑέν, begotten, 457, note 919. 

τιϑηνούμενος, nursed, suckled, 434, note 776. 

τιμητιχὴν προσχύνησιν, honorary worship, 337, note. 

torov, place, 22, note 24. 

τοποτηρητῶν, place holders, 202, note 514. 

τοποτηρῶν ἡμῖν, holding our place, 202, note 514. 

tpta, three; 450, note 883. 

τριμηναῖον * Ἔ * Θεόν, threemonthsold * * * God, 416, note 
716. ‘The English is found on page 412, text. 

τρισσά, three sheets, a ternion, 450, note 880. 

τρώγων, eating, 474, note 1007, twice. 

τύπον, τόν, the type; 282, note: τύπον σεπτὸν ἡγῇ xat σωτήριον, ‘‘ How dost 
thou suppose that its type is worshippable and saving?’ Said 
by a Nestorian to an Apollinarian or a Eutychian, 283, note. 
6 τύπος προσχυνητὸς xat σεδάσμιος, ‘‘ the type [15] to be bowed to and 
venerable,’ said by a Nestorian worshipper of Christ’s created 
and separate humanity and of its type, the bread of the Eu- 
charist, to an Apollinarian or a Eutychian, 283, note. τοῦ 
πάϑους τὸν τύπον ἐπιδειχνύς, ‘* Showing the type of the suffering,”’ 
283, note. 


fs 


ὕδατος, of water in the expression, ἐξ bdatos καὶ πνεύματος, out of water 
and the Spirit, 168, note 355. 


762 Act I. of Ephesus. 


υἱοϑεσίας, adoption to sonship, in the Twelfth Anathema of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council, which anathematizes that heresy of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia; see it in Greek and English on pages 
423, 424, note 758. Adoptionism. as we see there, includes 
denial of the Incarnation and results in relative worship of 
Christ’s mere humanity, and therefore is anathematized by 
the Fifth Synod of the Universal Church in its Anathema XII. 
Compare its Anathema IX., and Cyril’s Anathema VIII., 
which was approved at Ephesus. 

Yiés, Son, Nestorius on, 450, note 883; see under Neardptos. See also 
note 905, page 453: Vids, 6; see under ἀΐδιος: Υἱοῦ, ded, through 
the Son in the expression, ἕχαστα τῶν δρωμένων πεπράχϑαι διαόε- 
Gatubpevog παρὰ Πατρὸς δι’ Υἱοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι, Cyril ‘‘contends”’ 
that whatever Christ did, ‘‘ was done by the Father, through 
the Son, by the Spirit,’ 316, note 621. ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ, 
hath spoken to us in the Son, 477, note 1o16. 

ὑπαγορεύσαντυς, Aictated, 152, note. 

ὑπανεγνῶσϑη, has been read, 42. 

ὕπαρξιν͵ existence, 76, note 175. 

brdhabuv, have understood; 422, note 758. 

ὑποχρίσει, dissimulation, hypocrisy, of Peter, etc., in Galat. ii., 13. 

ὑπομνήμασι͵ Records, 294, note 519: τῶν ὑπομνημάτων, of the records, 
415, note 708. 

ὑπομνῆσει͵ to admonish, to remind, 44, note; 48, note. 

ὑπόστασιν, Substance in the expressions, χαθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, according to Sub- 
stance, 61, note 156; ὑποστάσεων, used of the ‘wo substances, that 
is the wo natures of the Son, 67, note; and Xapaxtyp τῆς ὑποσ- 
τάσεως αὐτοῦ, Character of His Substance, notes 165, 167, page 
73. xaW ὑπόστασιν, 74, note 169: ὑπόστασις, substance, 74, note: 
τὴν xav ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, 128, note 184. See ἕνωσιν: χαθ᾽ ὑπόσ- 
τασιν, according to Substance, Substancely, 215, notes 547, 548: 
220, note 570: ὑποστάσεσι δυσὶν οὔτε μὴν προσώποις χαταμερίξομεν, 
241, note: ‘‘ We do not part the expressions used of our Saviour 
in the Gospels either between two Subsistences, or furthermore 
between two Persons,’’? 241, note: ὑποστάσεσι, Beings or Hypos- 
tases, 313, note 607: ὑποστάσεσι, Hypostases, that is Persons, 
465, note 960: ἑνὶ τοιγαροῦν Προσώπῳ tag ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις πάσας 


ἀναθετέον φωνὰς, ὑποστάσει μιᾷ τῇ τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρχωμένῃ: In 


Index LV, Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 763 


English, ‘* Therefore all the expressions in the Gospels are to be 
ascribed to [but] One Person, to [but] One Subsistence of 
the Word Who has put on flesh,’ 313, note 616. Here 
προσώπῳ and ὑποστάσε;, are evidently used for God the Word 
only, Who, however, has put on flesh. So the same Greek is 
used by Cyril in note 660 on pages 322, 323, with the addition, 
Κύριος yap ets Inaods Χριστὸς, xara tas Γραφάς: 649: τὰς ὑποστάσεις 
μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, the Substances after the Union, that is the Sub- 
stance of Christ’s Divinity and the substance of His humanity, 
323, note 664: here plainly Cyril, approved by the Third 
‘Synod, confesses ‘wo substances, that is, of course, two Natures 
of the Son after the Union, which opposes the Eutychians, 
who acknowledged but one, and that the Divinity. Yet how 
often is he slandered as a Monophysite by those who do not 
understand him! How strongly he opposed those who would 
deny the permanence of the Two Natures we can see even in 
the Fragments of his Work agaznst the Co-substancers (Synus- 
jasts) which have reached us. ἐν ὑποστάσει * * * διχῇ, 
“‘in tts own Person,’ that is ‘‘zn zts own Substance,’’ 316, note 
634; xa ὑπόστασιν, ‘‘ according to Substance,’ 318, note 641; 
explained, 322, note 660; ἵνα μὴ τὰς ὑποστάσεις συγχέωμεν, ‘in 
order that we may not confound the Subsistences,’ that is ““ the 
Persons’ of the Trinity, 442, note 821, said against mixers of 
the Two Natures by Gregory of Nazianzus and read as an 
approved passage at Ephesus; ὑπόστασις, Subsistence, 442, note 
821, five times; ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἣ οὐσίας, ‘‘ of another Sub- 
sistence or Substance’ than the Father, 442, note 821; χαϑ' 
Exdotny * * * ὑπόστασιν͵ to each one of the Three Persons 
separately, 468, note 969. 
ὕστερον, afterwards or later; 47, note. 


Φ 


φαινόμενον, that which appears; 459, note 935, twice; τὸν φαινόμενον, he 
who appears, that is Christ’s humanity, 472, note Iooo, where 
Nestorius speaks; 474, note 1007. 

φάντασμα in the expression, μὴ τοῦτο εἰς φάντασμα, ‘‘ lest this’’ (be 
brought in) ‘‘for a phantasm,’’ 56, note: φάντασμα in the ex- 


764 Act I, of Ephesus. 


pression, μὴ τομῆς φάντασμα, ‘lest a fancy of a cutting,’ that 
is of a division, 56, note. 

φρενοδλαδοῦς, of an injured or smitten mind, 163, note 334. 

φυσιχόν, natural, 306, note. . 

φύσις͵ nature, and cases of it; φύσις, nature, in the expression, χατηῤ- 
ῥώστησεν ἡ ἀνϑρώπου φύσις τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, 316, note 627; see the 
English on page 264; φύσιν, used of the divine Mature of God 
the Word, 319, note 645: peta δὲ τὴν ἐνανϑρώπησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, 
τουτέστι, peta τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ϊησοῦ Χριστοῦ μίαν 
φύσιν προσχυνεῖν, χαὶ ταύτην Θεοῦ σαρχωθέντος χαὶ ἐνανδρωπήσαντος, 
that is, ‘‘ Szzce the Inman of God the Word, that is since the 
birth of our Lord Jesus Anointed, he [Eutyches] worships [but] 
one Nature, and that the Nature of God who took flesh and put 
on a Man,’’ 343, note; this utterance was not faulted when he 
uttered it but only his denial of the doctrine of the Two Na- 
tures of Christ, for he admitted only His Divinity. Athan- 
asius the Great, worshipped God the Word within the temple 
of His body; see ‘‘ A¢hanasius’’ in the General Index to this 
volume. φύσιν in the expression, ἑνωϑεὶς xata φύσιν, united as 
respects [His] Nature, 217, note 558; φύσις in the expression, 
od γὰρ vot τὰς φύσεις ἡ ἰσοτιμία, for equality of honor could not 
unite the natures, 217, note 560; φύσιν, Nature, in the expres- 
sion of Eutyches on page 344, note, ὁμολογῶ ἐχ δύο φύσεων 
γεγενῆσϑαι τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως, peta δὲ τὴν ἕνωσιν μίαν 
φύσιν ὁμολογῶ, In English this is, ‘‘Z confess that before the 
Union our Lord was of two Natures, but after the Union I con- 
fess [only] One.’? On page 344, note, ἐχ δύο φύσεων, of two 
Natures; on page 437, note 794, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 
confesses the Two Natures of Christ, and their difference; see 
the Greek and English there. Noteworthy is the fact that it 
was one of the passages of normal Orthodoxy read by Cyril’s 
Presbyter Peter to guide the Council in making up its decis- 
ions on the Faith. It was probably chosen by Cyril, or at 
least approved by him before being read, as it certainly was. 
afterwards. This serves to refute the slander of those who 
accuse him of Monophysitism; φύὕσεις μὲν yap δύο, ‘‘ For there 
are Two Natures;’’ this is the statement of Gregory of Nazi- 
anzus in a passage of normal Orthodoxy cited from him in 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 165 


Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council to guide it in defining; 
which shows how free the Holy Synod was from the heresy 
of One Natureism, and that Man Worship, that is Creature- 
Worship, which is its logical and necessary sequence; τῶν 
φύσεων, of the Natures, 450, note 883, where Nestorius con- 
fesses the Two Natures, though he held them to be apart from 
each other, and so denied the Inflesh of God the Word’s Sub- 
stance. Soon page 464, note 954, he writes, ἀσύγχυτον τουΐνυν 
THY τῶν φύσεων τηρῶμεν συνάφειαν, etc., “ Therefore let us keep 
the unmixed conjoinment of the Natures,’’ etc. Directly after 
he professes to co-worship the humanity of Christ with His 
Divinity. 
gas, τὸ ἐχ τοῦ φωτός͵ the Light out of the Light, 56, note. 


X 


χαῖρε, Rejoice, 419, note 735. 

χαραχτήρ, character, see ὑπόστασιν, 

χάρις and its cases: χάριτι θεοῦ, by the favor of God, or by Goa’s grace, 
503, text; χάριτι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, by the grace of the Anointed One, 
note 266, page 149. “χάρις, ἡ; the favor, 418, text; χάριτι, by 
favor, 418, text; 470, note 985. 

χαριτόω; one form of this verb is found on page 419, note 736, namely 
χεχαριτωμένη, favored. 

χαρτία, papers, 415, note 704. 

χρέος, debt; 193, note 484. 

χρίεται δὲ ὡς ἄνϑρωπος, but as Man He ἐς anointed, 216, note 55r. 

Xptotopayot, fighters against Christ, 20, note. 

Χριστός, Anointed, and its cases: Χριστὸς, 6, the Anointed One, xxi., 
note ‘‘7,”’ 62, note 156; 72, notes 161 and 162; 82, note; page 
88, note; 111, note, thrice; 128, note 196; 317, note 635; 352, 
note; 156, note 299; 200, note 529; ἐν Χριστῷ, in Anointed, 148, 
note 260: τοῦ Χριστοῦ, of the Anointed One, 152, note; 219, 
note 566: ἕνα * * * Xptsrdv, ‘‘one Anointed,’’ 323, note 
661: ἐπὶ Χριστῷ, on or of Anointed, 325, note 668. See ϑεοφόρος 
in this Index: τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the Anointed, explained by Cyril, 
328, note 671; 450, notes 881, 883: Nestorius’ explanation of 
ὁ Χριστός, the Anointed One, 460, note 943; compare 471, note 


766 Act I. of Ephesus. 


o_O 


994; 477, notes 1009, 1011: τὸν Δεσπότην Χριστόν, the Master 
Anointed; xxvi., note “‘g. τῷ δεσπότῃ Χριστῷ, the Master 
Anointed, 137, note: Χριστός used by Nestorius for both Na- 
tures of the Son, whereas Cyril uses it, by Economic Appro- 
priation, for God the Word, though the anoimting was done 
to the humanity only, 157, note 307. 

Χριστοτόχος, ‘‘ Bringer Forth of an Anointed Man,’ preferred by 
Nestorius to ϑεοτόχος, ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God,’ to help his 
denial of the Incarnation, 161, text, and note 317: 200, note; 
see θεοτόχος and ἀνϑρωποτόχος. On page 451, note 889, Nes- 
torius calls Mary, 7 ΖΔριστοτόχος παρϑένος͵ the Virgin Bringer 
Forth of an Anointed [Man];’’ so he does in note 904, page 
453 also; Χριστοτόχυς, Bringer Forth of an Anointed Man, 635: 

χωρεπίσχοπος, Chorepiscopus, that is ‘‘ Country Bishop,”’ 495, note 1105 


}}) 


Ψ 


φήφῳ, vote; see χοινῇ φήφῳ. 

Ψυχή, cases of; φυχῇ, in the expression, σάρχα ἐψυχωμένην φυχῇ λογιχῇ, 
69, note: φυχή, soul, 441, note 815. See there as to the Apol- 
linarian error of denying to Christ a mind. 

φυχιχόν, soulish; 306, note, twice. 

φυχωφελεῖ, soul-profiting, see σύμδολον. 


Q 
ὠμώμοχεν ἀσυνήϑως, he swore in an unusual manner, \xxviii., note “a.” 
ὡμώνυμον, or ὁμώνυμον, of the same tenor, 144, note. 
wotbrtate, most holy, or most devout, 41, note. 


Corrections and A daitions. 767 


CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS. 


Very great care has been taken with the proofs of this volume, nearly 
every page having been read at least six times. But, nevertheless, a remark 
often made is true of it, ‘No work is published without some errors.’’ For 
some will be found in the about 860 pages. All of any importance are given 
below, though a large part of the following list are mere typographical errors, 
in the way of misspelling, wrong punctuation, etc., which some would not put 
into the Errata, because the intelligent reader might be expected to correct 
them himself, and because to mention them might give the inexperienced the 
false idea that the proofs have not been carefully read. But, nevertheless, it 
has been deemed best, as they are marked, to print them. 

Furthermore, in strict justice, it must be remembered that part of what 
here follows comes under tke head of Additions, not Corrections. 


Page xvi., line 28, page should be pages. 

Page xvii., line 19, Syrzan should be Syrzans. 

Page 1., line 38, Metropolitan should be Metropolitans. 

Page Iviii., line 8, Stancaoro should be Stancaro. 

Page Ixxii., line 23, the quotation ends with Constantinople. 

Page Ixxv., to note ‘‘c’’ add, ‘‘ The Greek here seems corrupt. The Greek original and 
the Latin translation do not agree in places.’’ 

Page 12, line 3, after ‘‘ court,” insert in brackets, “literally ‘ to our divine court,’’’ Greek, 
τὸ θεῖον ἡμῶν στρατόπεδον. 

Page 13, note 18, line 7, Westorious should be Nestorius 

Page 14, line 9, /reenaeus should be /renaeus. 

Page 18, line 6, crioatoAarpéca Should be κτισματολατρεία. 

Page 18, line 29, appaling should be appalling. 

Page 28, line 17, Zawa should be Java. 

Page 47, line 9, the comma after ‘‘ them ’’ should be a semicolon. 

Page s2, note 140, colleéttive should be collective. 

Page 76, note 173, line 4, the period before ** Mzgne’s”” should be a semicolon. 

Page 79, note 183, line 2, Kipiov should be Κύριον; in line 6, αλλ᾽ should be ἀλλ᾽, and 
ἐνὸς should be ἑνὸς. 

Page 86, note, line 4, there should be a comma before διὰ, 

Page 86, note, line 21, αλλ᾽ should be ἀλλ᾽. 

Page 87, line 24 of the note, οὐ should be οὔ. 

Page 92, line 27 of the note, ἑπινοῶν should be ἐπινοῶν. 

Page 92, line 33, Mem. should be mem. 

Page 93, line 41 of the note, after ‘‘ placet”’ add, ‘‘ See also pages 259, 260 of P. E, Pusey’s 
translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius.” 

Page 100, line 1 of the note, the period before οὐ should be a comma. 

Page 100, line 7 of note, add, ‘‘ But on the words ‘serve Him [God the Word alone]’ com- 
pare pages 729-736.”’ 


768 Act I. of Ephesus. 


Page 104, line 25 of the note, separate ‘‘«zo’’ from ‘‘ zon.” 

Page 104, line 41 of the note, ‘‘ofa Maz’’ should be in brackets. 

Page 105, line 26 of the note, σρκώδῃ Should be σαρκώδη. 

Page 105, line 33. ἔπου Should be ἐπου. 

Page 115, line 25 of the note, ‘‘ Hzs’’ should be ‘‘ Vestorzus’,”? 

Page 118, line 21 of the note, Oxe should be one. 

Page 118, line 32, Sow/ should be sou/ and 3715 should be zs. 

Page 119, line 3 of note, ‘‘ dz¢’’ should be “" διεί."" 

Page 119, line 9 of note, ἄνθρωτον should be ἀνθρωπον. 

Page 131, line 22 “ Holy’’ should be ‘‘holy.”’ 

Page 145 lines 2 and 12, “ Holy”’ should be “‘ holy.” 

Page 149, line 10, VVzcaeas should be Vicaeans. 

Page 149, line 2 of note 267, read τῷ before Συμβόλῳ. The ῷ in τῷ is broken, 

Page 162, note 327, VL//. should be V//J. 

Page 173, note 371, cows. should be cons. 

Page 184, note 438, line 5, Azz. should be &zn. 

Page 220, note 574, add, ‘‘ John xx.,17. See page 670.” 

Page 225, note 580, line 1, put comma after A fostates. 

Page 225, note 582, line 34, Προτότοκον should be πρωτότοκον. 

Page 234, note, line 13, after ‘‘and’’ add ‘‘so.”’ 

Page 235, note, line 20, after “‘ ANTITYPEs,’’ add in brackets, ‘‘that is, AFTERTYPEs.”’ 

Page 236, note, line 14, after ‘‘ Chapiers’’ add ‘‘ delivered at Ephesus.” 

Page 267, subuote ‘‘7r,’’ deprehenditur is but one word. 

Page 288, note, line 29, the quotation begins with ‘‘ the power.”’ 

Page 329, note 671, line 15, after ‘‘statement”’ add ‘‘ that Apollinarians held.” 

Page 343, note, line 32, τάυτην should be ταύτην. 

Page 360, subnote ‘‘a,’’ line 2, ‘‘c. 1’’ should be ‘‘c. 1.”’ 

Page 377, note, line 14, put comma after ‘‘it,’’ not a period. 

Page 379, note, line τό, after ‘‘ here ’’ should be inserted the words ‘‘ Fourth Person.”’ 

Page 393, line 12 of note matter, after ‘‘and’’ and before ‘‘all’’ add, ‘‘Cyril in effect 
teaches that.”’ 

Page 415, note 714, line 3, put comma after ‘‘death.”’ 

Page 419, line 7, insert in parentheses ‘' 733.”’ 

Page 422, note 755, line 3, insert after ‘‘time,’’ ‘“‘ before his death, or.” 

Page 429, note, line 38, eFayopoc should be ἐξαγοράς. 

Page 431, note, line 16, “22. should be *‘ 2, 3.” 

Page 439, note 802, line 11, the quotation should begin with “ sufficient,” and Hanmond’s, 
in line 16, id., should be Hammond's. 

Page 450, note 880, line 6, αὐτίκα Should be αὐτίκα. 

Page 454, note 910, line 6, put acomma after γεννηθέν, and another after “ conceived,” 

Page 454, note 911, line 9, use parentheses instead of the brackets there. 

Page 462, text, line 6, ‘‘lhe’’ should be “‘ the.” 

Page 462, note, line 13, ‘‘cou.’’ should be ‘‘ con.” 

Page 464, note, line 19, the quotation ends with ‘* worship.” 

Page 465, note 960, line 1, the ‘*q” in ὑποστασεσι Should be (( q,”’ 

Page 466, note 963, line 3, put a comma after ‘‘ Scholza,’’ and another after ‘‘ conjoined,” 
in line 6, id. 

Page 472, line 14, remove bracket from after ‘‘ Man,"’ and put it after ‘‘ means.” 

Page 523, note ‘‘a,’’ in line 1, ‘‘aud"’ should be ‘‘and."’ 

Page 590, note, line 29, change “Ὁ to “1 in the last syllable of ‘absolutely,’ 

Page 596, line 8, ‘‘ £z.”’ should be *‘ Ez." 

Page 628, line 4 from foot of page, put a comma after “6.” 

Page 666, above line 3 from foot, put ‘‘Z"’ as a heading. 

Page 696, line 25, ανθω, should be ἀνθρω. 

Page 699, line 3 from top, put the semicolon before ‘‘ 454 ,’’ not the comma. 

Page 7o1, last line, ἐξηγήσεων, should be put after ἔξαρχον. 


Correétions and Additions. 769 


The following gift to the fund to Publish the VI. Ecumenical 
Synods, from my highly esteemed namesake, who is now 94 years 
old, and in active work, came to hand too late to be put in its 
proper place in the List of Donors on pages liii.-lv. It is therefore 
put here. 

REV. JAMES CHRYSTAL, D.D., Auchinleck, Ayrshire, 
Scotland. 


N. B.—On pages 102, 103, 346 and 356, I have declined to 
express my own opinion as to the lawfulness of worshipping Christ’s 
humanity with God the Word, that is, on the co-worshio of His two 
natures by some who admit the Incarnation. At the close of this 
volume I repeat that declinature, and wish to be understood on all 
that topic as speaking only Azstorically of the opinions of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, St. Athanasius, and others, as I have said on page 103, 
note, top, At some time in the future I may give my own personal 
view. Of course, however, I condemn the Nestorian co-worship of 
them. 
For the present I deem it enough to say that, as all Orthodox 
men agree that Ephesus has decided forever that Christ’s perfect and 
sinless humanity, the highest of all mere creatures, may not be wor- 
shipped separately from the Divinity of God the Word (see above, 
pages 108-112); therefore much less may any lesser creature be wor- 
shipped, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs and other saints, or any 
archangel or angel, or any other creature whomsoever, and that no 
mere thing may be, be it the cross, a picture, a graven image, relics, 
a communion table, an altar, or any thing but God and that directly, 
not through any of those alleged mediums, relatively or otherwise. 
And any one guilty of any of those sins, if a clergyman, is deposed, 
if a laic, is excommunicated and anathematized. This, in effect, is 
the Holy-Ghost-led and irreversible decision of the Whole Church, 
Kast and West, in its Third Ecumenical Synod. Compare pages 96 
and 112 on that matter, and indeed all of pages 102-128, aye, all 
note 183, pages 79-128. 


δ ie. 
(a) eye " ὦ 4 a! 
AOD "ἢ Dae: κεἰ vel ἐν δ: ἡ Τὰ ᾿ 
ἰ UGS , a ΚΝ Δι Ἰ 
,)}} "εἰ Ἔ ΤΟΝ “5 A ΩΣ Ping rie A weer) io te, MW ὦ ν it mp ἂ δι 
ἡ ἌΓΗΙ Ware i Na tial i d ria RL wet 
ash ὶ Ι ὯΝ ᾿ 
7 ΚΑΊ ἡ i τ ᾿ Σ \ 
vl tee WRAL Bal ae yt ἢ 
DES σὴν Ἀμμ ἀμ ἢ 
ΠΥ et 


ie 


ie 


Wit bath Fe ΠῚ adhe 
ei? ¢, 


TO ALL CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS. 


Note well, the most important and most authoritative Christian documents next 
to the Scriptures now translated in full for the first time. A translation 
into English of the Six Ecumenical Councils, the sole utterances of the 
Whole Church before its division into East and West in the Ninth Cen- 
tury. Translated by James Chrystal, M. A., and others. 


The terms are, Three Dollars a Volume to Subscribers to the Set; Four Dollars 
to all others. Books sent Prepaid on receipt of price. All orders and 
subscriptions should be forwarded by Money Order, Cheque, or Regis_ 
tered Letter, to James Chrystal, 255 Grove Street, Jersey City, New 
Jersey, U. S. A. 


VOLUMES ALREADY PUBLISHED. 


Vol. I. of the First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea, A. D. 
325. It contains all its Genuine Remains in Greek and English. 


Wuat Dip THE WHOLE CHURCH DECIDE AT NICAEA? 
It decided: 

I. That the Logos, that is, the Word (John i., 1), is eternal God, of one Sub. 
stance with the Father, and condemned the creature-worship and polytheism of 
Arianism; and put forth a Creed in which that do¢trine is proclaimed; (Synodal 
Epistle). 

2. It fixed the time of keeping Pask, that is Easter, (Synodal Epistle). 

3. Forbade self-castration, (Canon I.); and 

4. The ordination of the newly baptized, (Canon II.); and 

5. Forbade clerics to have synisact women, except close relatives, etc., 
(Canon ITI.) 

6. It orders the Provincial System to be maintained everywhere, and 
guards the rights of Metropolitans, (Canons IV., V., VI. and VII.) 

7. Directs how the Catharist clergy are to be received and dealt with, 
(Canon VIII.); and 

8. Rejects from the Presbyterate unworthy persons who had been ordained 
without examination, (Canon IX.) 

g. Fixes the time of Public Confession and discipline of those who had 
fallen into the sins of invoking creatures and worshipping images, (Canons X., 
XI., XII., XIII. and XIV.); and 

το. Forbids the translation of Bishops, Presbyters, or Deacons, from one 
diocese to another, under penalties, and invalidates the ordination of a man 
belonging to one diocese by the Bishop of another, without his own Bishop’s 
consent, (Canons XV., XVI.) 

11. Forbids any cleric to take usury, and filthy lucre, under pain of 
deposition, (Canon XVII.) 

12. Forbids the presumption of Deacons in the Eucharist, and in sitting 
among Presbyters, (Canon XVIII.) 

13. Orders how the Paulianist heretics are to be received, and commands 
them to be baptized again and reordained, (Canon XIX.) 

14. Commands all to stand in Prayer on the Lord’s Day and from Pask to 
Pentecost, that is, from Easter to Whitsunday, (Canon os) 


Volume I. of Ephesus, A. D. 431. What does it contain? All 
of Act I. of the Council. 


WHAT DID THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH DO IN THAT ACT? 


It condemned, deposed, and anathematized Nestorius, because, 

1. He denied the Incarnation. 

2. Because he worshipped by bowing, etc., Christ’s mere separate human- 
ity, which is the Worship of a Man (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), as St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
the leader of the Orthodox, terms it, that is, the worship of a creature,contrary 
to Christ’s law in Matt. iv., lo. 

3. Because he held to one nature Consubstantiation in the Eucharist, that 
is, to the Consubstantiation of Christ’s humanity, not at all His Divinity, with 
the bread and wine there, and to the eating of Christ’s real human flesh in the 
rite, and to the drinking of Christ’s real human blood there, which St. Cyril 
brands as ἀνθρωποφαγία, that is, Cannibalism. ‘The Council approved St. Cyril’s 
teaching of the real absence from the Eucharist of the Substance of Christ’s 
Divinity and the substance of his humanity. 

Of course, in condemning, deposing, and anathematizing Nestorius for the 
error of worshipping by bowing, prayer, or by any other act, Christ’s mere sep- 
arate humanity, which all admit to be the highest of all mere creatures, the 
Universal Church has much more (a fortiori) condemned by necessary impli- 
cation all who worship by bowing, prayer, or by any other act of religious 
worship, be it prostration, incense, or any other, any creature less than Christ’s 
sinless and perfect humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs, or any other de- 
parted saints, or any archangel or angel or any other creature whomsoever, or 
any inanimate thing, be it relics, crosses, pictures, graven images, communion 
tables, altars, clerical vestments, the Bible or any part of it, or any thing in the 
Universe except the Eternal Substance of God. 

And in condemning, deposing, and anathematizing Nestorius for asserting 
the real presence of the substance of Christ’s humanity in the Eucharist, and 
the Cannibalism of eating it there, and in asserting the real absence from the 
rite both of the Substance of Christ’s Divinity and the substance of His 
humanity, the Universal Church has established forever the doctrine of the real 
absence as the Holy-Ghost-approved-and-guided and unchangeable faith of the 
Universal Church, and has forbidden all real presence views, be they Consub- 
stantiation or Transubstantiation, and all their results of Cannibalism, and the 
idolatry of worshipping the bread and wine as God the Word and Man, or as 
either God the Word, or Man, or any alleged real presence of one or both of 
Christ’s Two Natures in, under, or with the bread and wine. 

What else did the Universal Church do in the Third Ecumenical Council 
after Act I.? 

That will be told in the proper place in another volume of Ephesus. 


OE GE FSO RAM miei oye 


hey é. 
eo ἐν τ τ me ab? 


eae ἜΣ ΟὟ "ἶ Σ i 
ae Pe, seit κα δέ. ποτε} 
+ ‘ dere yr 140 ἱφ ν $3 τς - 
in igh tts Fe 
| See ye eo Fey 
Bite eit το ψεεμενθεϊέχιε τειν ΤΥ ΠΩ 


ἡ 


f 
΄ pane 


OAR Bibtapicnts yeni size u' 


= he, 3 iki icj εἰ εν ξυ LF ees μ΄. Δ ἐν τὰ 4 “} 


δ ee fark Sed “brit Yigare αἱ hae Ste 
μον ραν Ὁ} ian. yi et). foie 
ὑϑυσείοωῦ WES WAPI, MARR 
; piisequsa yay Dip ΣΙ κι heh 
bah wer) DUBS SL iA3 
re Hain te Sites sik 
Care bee: Baa? $5331) tp Ag 
Rote sui ke λα τὸς. sees cv ρὶ 


δι 4 . trast Piety αῆο ἊΝ 


Get. ἢ μέλον ΕΓ Ὲ “μὰ τὶ 
oleate ΟΣ κὸν Ε 


ΩΝ 


Fae 


(it 


010654151 


ἡ 


il 


ἐν ον oie ein ietel> 


oye aiape epee » 
eisisi+ ΡΣ 


ie 
ΤΩ wiererrts! 
ΠΗ 


joo jer " 
\ehetetreielelsie 


pratepehetetereie Δ aa 
pent sinters ote ΟΝ 
rey 


sina) 
ΗΜ Mee 
pie Slegesenater ΤΑΣ ΕΣ ΟΕ τ ΕΣ ΡΤ τ tiie ts yi 
jaiaieieleieteie lee) jeleyeieieieieieloaiere err) ΩΝ -) } 
‘siateh sisisjopeiereisieiah=lsrsis} jn}obepehelelelelejeriei*)*i* ete 
joe ehyere peyepe pe * +. ἐ aie ὁ ὁ ὁ κι σιδὶ eye? 
τὸ τὴ ἣν hays ΡΣ we? 
jn ee ale eye here shevmiete: 


preter ὁ με wd) 
je yehe 


τ ον 
a lesen γέ χὴν τὐὰν peters ooh ΗΝ ΠΗΜΜΗΝ sed gach 
deteegy: Ἰφ φ δ», δὴν 8). } 5) 
" 


jo δ δ δ φ σὺ 
re ' ry “"οὐεὶσ 
ΠΝ ἡρ οὐδ  οἰσίσ σφι ἡφ ον ἜΗΙ jelelel~ 


ἐφ) σφε» iejoteleioiojole? iste 


τ χε αὐ τ χα ον 


a 
ἌΣ - ᾿ 
οἰῶ οὐ  ο᾽ ὁὐώ οὐ οὐδὲν »»᾿ογολογο σφιν φωνή σ᾽ κέσννι ΡΥ. 
le tates ΡΣ wiolebeteyetnit tc rersisieinteleeiel te aja peereyete te! 
μον γα) 1} 9}. =e jaisisieheseiesettscacgeieisiar ΒΊΗΙ ἵ eT Lake οὐ πὶ» σ᾽ 
ἘΣΜΕΝ, ele αὐ ΤΟ Ασα * Widisie yore l= 
ΤΣ νὰ oe nie ” jnisisie)eie! 
ΤΣ ojala pete pers fieh® ev ever yelepeleie 
ἡ via ουν 
mle) ayaa 
seen? ΡΥ δὰ 
ΟΡ δ oe 


lee ele 
ja ajehetelele 
iwi 


ν᾽ τ γε 

ἐν. ἐν δή »» oleh ΡΣ 

τ ἐνεςνε τε γεν σεν εὐ αὐ φλᾷ reid ejeieieieiel>lsicie}o)> 
jopeieteieieie! 


ieee hele: 
ragyete ΤΣ, ghee ρανασ ἀν τ ΣΡ ΣΡ ΤΕ ΤΣ 
je μεφ δ᾽ ο ον σή φ  φοιουν join 


[ele nepal ete mele 
jatajeiapeisioneisieieie)s|oie =! 
a vete le hete! 
ΠΣ 
aieinieiepetes)* sie 
bbe |e loretersieie)et 
δηρόν ονὸ γεγο δι δ᾿ 
οἰ "με οὐδ᾽» δε ε δ ο 


ia isbelebeeianemelercicis | 
ἐν * " ΡΣ eye ἐν εν jeholej=\sjor= 
ppepopeleberehatei~> ΡΣ ἐπε τα ϑ ο ᾿ δ δὺο οὐδ φ οιφι jalteweielo ἐφ οὐ τ᾽ +) 
. ᾿ ἰδ ι Ἰοὺ ἐΦ γ ἐδ γεῖφ. hale eiepejeleisielele jo be ithe μα τ δ ἐόν ἐπ συν, 
Ἰο ο οὶ ἐσ δ σι σέο φὶν ον ΡΝ ΠΩΣ Jao o}ojetot~ 
ΡΣ δ ΠΣ τοι φιδν ιν)». jolojeiete l= 
rieloiele)e leleieiele ΟΝ Leletete|olepere ὁ. 
je\e\e jeie le aimjeseieiejeyereseiniei=}> 
hee | δι ἡφγογό δ᾽ 9 δ φ᾽νὶσ ο᾿ὐ σφ δ᾽διο δὶ 
μι μ: ee lee lei~ 


apele 
jelejeiebeie pombe ie lere pete κα 
poiedete re ieiele ΤΣ 
joyeialeyriaiele jojo hale t=) 
ὦ hejegeloreyet pepeyep siete ' 
popere epeieie Ἰφ εν ν τς Σ 


jorstotolobei neater εὐ τα “κεῖ ει 


APE ie μαγυ μα α 
hele  κ σ᾽ οὐδ)ν}ν 


,Φ οὐδ διό lols iereie 


risieieioisteie 
fate ie peie) to δ} 9 )8)Ὁ [oho ee pee τὴ coy γεὶ 
ἰ τον ae et φρο διεὶς Se pid αὐ τα ᾿ Seine gene geqnernet το ο φυσικὴν eye δὲ δ γεν ts 
ἌΣ bee pepe lel dbdaded rag εὐ εὐ τι ἣν δὴφ τ σ με δ τα να σα αν δ ὑπ γφ τ ένϑ αὐ iris ainteleiaie el 
ppebwteierelerer ΡΥ νόον μανα  Φιν να jolepere @heleletel* ‘ ὦ 4 7 ὦ 
Late he jo he imp myers) jopetele Ἰρηδ ον σ φὐφ φ ὁ δ οὐφ Φ οἰν σφ οἰ ο νὴ» aioe ieee jeiejetepeietafe)=ie)= 
pieiepeioiei> jeolsiajsieieiviereielsiere oie. ᾿ με φνο δι οἐφ᾽ο δ δήθ pate δὶ μεὶου σι διό οὐδ δὶ ννο σύν» 
ΤΣ οἱ Loe ie Φ δὶθ we ’ jelnintoseiosoleiepeieein} δ, ὁ δήθ γο ὁ re etait pre iere’= 
με φηφ ΣΙ φηΦὶΦ > τόση χο es ΠΣ ὁ ,νιδιφ ν φήν φὶ γό νον 
roe yoleisjepeto lols . γοιὸν ἡΦ re het ΤΥ γον leininiotelejereiele ΠΣ 
fests belel= lopebebeiel> a bdidiethdadl γϑγενοιδιφίφιδι γο οι δι ο ονσυν jefe τγνγοηο δ οηῥο δὶ ei 
γε σφ ρ κρ φιδν (aoe ope hele fete pepe oie tepel® “οὐ τὺ oie reyaeget ree δ γο μεϑο δ γόγδ δ. 6 6 
ojo σψγε οὶ μοὺ δὴ ἐν» ἐν αν με οἰ φυ δ οι δ᾽' οἰφὶ οι μα πὐδιφησὶσν helebebepe jolermieiereperete)*! ja γϑηο οὶ δ) γογόνο δι σετνοῦ . 
at et ave je eieialeleieiereseiee #! ie a aruggyesates φυσι ν pe eh ὁ οὐρ ὁ ὑο δὶ» δ ieee ἡο ὁ ο δεν 1 κυ φιον - 
ν᾽ aieyet pehete le rele ele defer τὐτέσεεν oh ΤΥ “νὰ μεγ ὁ δ δ» le rel " ΠΣ " rT oie evete)eiehetere)eiel® 
. eleisinieleleimielereieiei® οὐκ» ο συ σύφισι po lminte hotelier \ eee a miejejer } ᾿- ΡΥ νον γ δεν a 
Sete ietcistatcseroiisiels eitih peboteiei= > τεκέσθαι. ahepeisiejehe}*) ἐκ asics wispciet> he ay eecereeeate ses Cie pap rervesgereeys shoich 
jer ied ἡ ΤΥ ἐὸν “᾿- “ἰαἰσνν» je bebe ον  οδὺ jeielele 
ἱ γέ τε ΡΣ sejeiegeel® ele! ΡΠ yearn ce regen Ty; o)s\e!*heteheh 
“yeh! he νῶν “;' eleje pe eee 
ahebebe etelere 
ole hee l® 


ἐγέζέκ νει rdene tutes 
pole διοικεῖ ον 
pe aberepet 
- 


siareieleiele!* Ἐπ  ομ μὴ des ane 
'᾿ ind " 
Gates 


oyiesie ὦ γ»»᾽Φ δ᾽ ye)” 
yoieye 


aie) 


-» 
σεν 


ΡΥ Σ δ 
τ ἀν te γέ γα τό Set AT 


“ν᾽ Φιφοισισ» ΤΣ 
Ἐφ ον δὺῖφ οι ὦ ele pore )> 


οὐολ ιν δ ον) δ φὶθ 


eine 
ee jeje eisielele Φ 


lelet po δον be eho τ 


- νὰ τὐνε csi κέ λτψένε 
pio ieibiebeleeleisiet jelsiajepriaieirie}s 
(vie τεὴν pete se ieiere lel ya leyeie! oleh ‘ 
pies apaiale ΤΣ χουν δὲ ee lole +n pops iele) 
ΠΣ jelsiehei leit lope reielalnpeleieit - je\elelajaloleiele eit σις ole peepee 
2 ὀρ σι ἡ» pieced γέ σειν γφηφύφσιν ΠΩΣ σαὶ γα κυ» εἰσ συμ Lois γεγο φἰφὐδιο θ στιν 
ῬΟΨΟΡΥΝΥΥ poeyerel= pojore eet jaro ia ejysiers) polejeieie)-j-isie i= nie bia με one ieie erat )* 
2 oiayepeieteiel* ehelels operele ree rp ct χὐ σύ τε ¥ - 2 ib jain jeioioteleieitete pehelele= bapoporeiesiepelel 
ΠΩΣ δ οἢ he pe pape bere) ode we ieiele eet sie οὐδ rier wpeheerepe joie ape ele) j be ape pete ον.» μεν σὺ» 
rie “σ᾽. ἐν τὸν jotepeleie ν᾽ ὦ ΡΥ νὰ Ἰοιογόγο)ο δ. διλυούονο piety xe γε δὶ to ahese)eeieteietere)=p-)~ 
ΡΣ. ᾿ Ἰν) δ᾽ οὐοὶδ νηοὺς ; +) bolejeleiey> ΡΟΣ δ eels tere jejoss = oreleiere oie l= i= 
to εὐχή εὐ τε ΠΣ : ay ἢ ΠΣ awhataleieletet=be peters ie ον δι ο συν ὁ ayoisimjerer 
Tete ἊΝ ΥΡΥΨΥΡΥΥ ye} joe ieielejelee)=r ᾿ se ἰΦόνιο᾽ο ὁ 
ΠΣ . ΝΣ jajeieiehe οὐο ιν eierejerel* i a\erebete's) 
we leisiersyeis i ehobelelsieiele joie pete) jojojeieisicie ioe jo posedeyeie 
οἷν ἐσ  Φἰφ οἸΦ ἡ φὴφ δ᾽» ἐσ ο δέκ δὴν + “-- lai  μ γομ γον be telet ἐφ οὶ ree ΟΡ ΡΜΟΥΥ ΝΟΣ 
γοἰφ δ φισ ὁ ΦιφιΦ  φιφὶρ ἢ’ οὐδ id bd eked hepa δ φ ον.» ele 2} ieiajeperopeveretels φογδυ δ ᾽ θ᾽, οὴον 
ριον. ἐφ σιν ὦ γε σ᾽ ον ον») δι διφσὶ γο Ψγόγόῥο δ)» ἐφ οι φ οὶο ἡδιϑυϑιϑυον 
jojeisiejeiejareieie+ist opeinie ja bonnie js ime ee tere) 
sibleieie|slejleieiriei= -) “' ἡ) οὐδ ἐφ φ δέ φιφιφ δ φυν! 
δ οἸο δ᾽ »ἡο᾽ τ δ οὺθ δὺς oh Ως οἰ )ν τ φ le νον οἐν οὐ τὴν jaye γ᾽ δὺφ δ ὴδ }6 ἡκ δ ἐν δι’ here’ 
ΠΣ jaleisisigiajeielejeleietst pwlepelareieieiein)* jamb pepe 
jojo ΠΥ) ded edie eo owle pepe ele y nln le pete ope hel Sev eatdeneveersepc tery 
opahere 4 topes ertesavayseente ἐσ heh ΠΣ Ἀν δ» }» aleleieleisisie)** 
ape δ᾽ σι ον ἐς ΠΣ δ [6766 δ ὁ δ.) 4. lee iis) eye pe πς o\eieirr Φιδ᾽» ἰοὺ σιν» 
» spsietejereisieie™ ohopele}o)e ie? 
oie 


᾿ 
ἡφύρυ . τὸ ὦ μϑἡο δ ἡ διό ἡ φ δ᾽ Φ Φ Ω : 
ἐς Sainte leieieiey=ieieinye φίδι νι 
ate loleleleeieie}*i* 


“ον. 
ἸΝΜΗ ie a hejnieieialebejeinte δὴν 
pereierele |e ae "- “οὐκ τ δὴν», Ἰσὶσ oie pein lelepeiayelele νεροῦ» 
j » " Mirchi τῶν κὸν eee ΕΣ 
- pape ) οὐ) γ)δὴΦ Φηυφὺν»)φ oy joisjeieie? 
ΩΣ ᾿ - 


ΣΝ 
ΠΥ νυν υόω 


ape} ep) 


eieieisieleleyere)=i*) τοφ δὴ οὐ φιν δήθ οὶ 
"τῷ οὐκ δ᾽ ΠΥ νόνόυ νὴ “ν᾿ 
τ. ΜΉΤ aieieiaieleleto)~ 
joie yeieieieieleleie ie) joreseiejetel= " 
ΑΙ ΡΥΡ ΤΥ ΣΡ ἐν ψόψηήγύψι poole we heporei=)aiel*!= - wie 
2 )etoie jeteye bein pein'* apes coats! je pepe eye ye pele 
' wee aiapeseieieiere! bo ieleieiebetoie ere εὧ ὁ 
rs ep veges joe}> ΠΥ to 
ἐφ. ieee Shes ’ joys|eheiaie)eie 
pale δ δισ en telebetet ΠΣ jajejojejelsibieisinjeie/ote 
‘ oe 


+e pei) tole ei 


} 
jejaneiede ΤΩ: 
opera διδὲν ὁ 


je pei hehe 
aveheye yer) 
lobe a letohe 
awyopeleloles 


lele οἰ σ᾽. 


jojeia oie ha 
joyabeh 


TT Fed bd bd ed 
wo aetoh= be lale het 


ἀν ανα σα συ σανι 
salen “᾽ν 
ΠΣ 


Ἰδ δι με δυό σι οὶ 
pape je rere pe νὰ jolete 
jebe pete lehebe) 

ele 


pe cd es ΩΣ ciate 
oa . - ele oie 
ΠΥ ΣΣ iat eit ieee εὐ τι a 
jo jeieiejepeim bole ye} ταν ΣΤΉΝ #)eye jets! ἐμὴν ὁ! 
9 ο᾽φ!Φ φυσι σικις Pe dad aya hdaabdard ; o ΝΣ δ οὶ ho}? 
ind bet “ιν jeperererel= ὁ ἡ φ δ δ κ᾽ “ Heke reaeytxt syeye* ΕΣ ΡΥ )υδιὰ ἡ δ δὸς ΠΣ 
. οἸοἰ“" "σ΄ ΠΩ ἡ + mle! ΡΣ ho οὐσ το)». ΠΣ ἡφο σ οἰ δὲν σε σι σδ ΟΨΟΨΥΥΥΣ 
ΠΣ ἐν yore rb ER όψε LY νὰ ἂν Sie οισοι ΡΕΗΨΥΨΕΡΥ ΤΙ oo τὸ γύγόσε ξεανεν εὐ αὐ δα ieee! 
“. τφΦ ὦ εκ δ σι δέφιδι κ  κγ}6᾽ ἐφ᾿ ὃ e)erniereia)sie= hate =! 
jojeeie)* Oe dd ἐκ σὺ wee ole) jopejejeje ete) γε» ον» > 
οιδγό ὦ μα ὁ δι ΦέΦύφ φίφίφυοι oe sibicisisisjoiotajepejsieieleiayeieh ᾿ 
r -—- ΠΣ mie yejepeleiejerrir er edd 
ΤΩ wie οὶ eit ὦ γὸ ν᾽ εκ σὸς pe a peheree'* 
sane ie pe h* δ᾽ δι» +)* ajoye jee ἐν "θυ 
Lolo ὦ be joe | 1% 9. γύυ γέ ένα 
je jegeiel= 


ΠΣ jw bebe pe ee ire 

eee ΜΙ 
γρμμο“,»).)Φ ΩΣ 
jatoheieiapeieteieie)=)e)e) ahd Sb 


popere 
ria ὦ γ ἡ }»)ε)ν hoje lajere 
γδ ἡ δ) δὶ ο φασι 
Φ᾽)ν ἡ εἰσιν 
beh 


be lore pe pele ier 
opal e\eiele 


epee! - 


elelete 
infec 


Π jot pe patole) 
jopojer® ieee elton vie ἐσ σὺν 
ΠΣ] et ‘= ΡΣ φῇ») "᾽ν 
BET: ἐφ᾿ i Ὁ ὑφ δ ἢν foi ἢ jo he b> 
jareieieiaiete ΠΩΣ ΝΣ a ieheiepelere liebe διδινη διὸ δὲν 
ἐξην οὐ τέ ΠΣ ὦ er ΡΥ joie) 
ΠΩ [ον )» γ᾽)» ) δυο behehepete)*) babe ὁ)» 6) 
tole} ΚΝ μ᾿. πο, 
ΟΣ »“"οισέ νοις a) jajejsjereieisi=pniere ie) ohne tisieiel 
jo hete re ® jojo ieie\* jo lejepeie ieie iain ΤΣ ΤΣ 
whelepeielelei+ owt wie ohana be pe yey 
} . heleleie)eieje*)e)+ir) ΡΥ, ΟΣ δον μή χύγγογό νην γα ον 
“ἐσσι σιν ᾿ wh joie “ ἡ δίΦ δ δ)» }5}4}6}9} ΤΥ ΤΙΣ ὁ γδύοὶ ὁ δὲ οι οὺ» δ δ νο!ο γόν Ὁ 
jrieiejejeieiciejeiapel~ ΠΣ ἀμ μ δ ογδο.» Φιου οι - eo bebe οὐ ο jetee δ σφ ie’ 
\oheper® ΚΡ ἐξόν ied pe μον ο᾽ οὐδὲν eee ieieiwis 
oeyee oy oa ie oie δὺο ὦ CT dk beheld poe resere 
japalee)eieiereiny® ed ΤΣ pet 
τὸ νο δ ό ᾽ς σι. ΠΣ 


ΠΣ 


ὁ)ε)» 


ΣΝ 


aie eho δε ὺ» δι 


yale ΡΥ eerie ys rie 
ss ange , sy reat gi Frege eeanes yt et Lem letere ee lt ie peer! 
συν φλν εὐνν 


δ᾽) νὸν» ον οὐδ κε ον δι» τς 
osialeiei=jeeleeie ὦ jojo \ete\>!* 


eeareet ! 
ajaiepayeheperejalalet 


joao joie ,υφιδὶ “οὐκ το δ δ κισι 
oareiejelereie pealels}= pojeie= 
po )obe pone |e poieioi= ele i ΣΝ 
PTT Φ,» " μρόσι ιν 7 edad 4} 
τ δ ὁ le ape ἐΦ ὦ μὸ Φ ἐφ σι ie " με μεδμ δε tases) pipet renee y 
. ἐφ ed od bed ied γε) σ σὺ»! ΡΥ “ὧν aleiejel= jeyoje aie} 
| sole Tibisteteieieielepeiet ‘ " πὸ ὁ γο ο)ε σον ν ΤΥΤΡΙΣ μηε γε όγο 
aisiajeieieieialel= ᾽ν» a leheteieh joie joy) joiejeiejsiobeieiniele Shahe jes ete 
yo jejejereleleye ele ) ᾿ + ΝΥΝ rele)? Te od dl ba Lene ipo} jeyeieie lei δὴν eee japele® 
οἰδιν adhd bo δῚ - lobepeieleiei=bei= ΡΥ ΡΥΡΕΨΎΡΥΨΟΥΣ ΠΩ γὠ ε ό γι γε δύδ δ σ 
ἐπάν ε ee sper Ἰο)ο seeie)®! } sie bale pole here> 
4 eee is} ΓΝ eeleieiele 
ΤΣ δι ἐξ oho bere pope be γ ἡο διδν 1?) johepe bie) eiei* 
ἐμμηοι iat pels! oie) lebajeieieiejeieieieitie) hepa jobaieia}s)ere leh 
jejeje jetetel® ὁἰσ νη δισια σι τὺ poleja μὸν σον» 


οἰκί δ» 
ΣΣ 


ἂν δὲ αὐούδό σι 


οὐδ δι ιν ΠΣ 
ῳ 


“- 
εν ἐφ δ here 


at 


ΝΣ ποτέ κεήτι ” P 
7 . - pwhete 
st rpyteee Wy ase ἡ τὸ eo eee ve a yee ΜΝ } aise} itis ΟΡ ΎΝΥΣ Το ἐς εὐ χόὶ 
ἐπι σας te Ἷ is , i ΗΜ ded we nie δι δ oie leo ieee) pee ΤΣ 
οἰ οὐοὺδ οι σ δι - a jayele la) a hmieler ᾿ το bolelepejojei>i=ielepeie!® “ὦ δ᾽ ὁ ονώ εν δὐφισ σι οοσ whole 
joe ieleloioloreieiole: μπὰς ΗΜ ΜΜΉΡΡΡΙΝ τὶ τέλεα ded eee’ ἡ γυυ δ» = join bebe japeleleia|«lele 
sje peje satan Sedasededeease Soseegnye ean ora plage apesat ve grove ; siete icheiciaieleieieteiet 
Se . [τὰ τ’ αι τὸ e}6 tele ιο σιν sere Sees iebteh tht γο οὐδ δ όίφ ας edguetrtes “)) 96 rieves yes “9 
᾿ 4 yee νὰ ᾿“}- - - ΨΥ ee - ete levels : hed oiehelel« 
“᾿ ΤΣ fee τυ τέ τε τν εξ yet ἐμ ἐπέ μι ; ,.(ἡ» γα δ) ed joys meapeereans pope betoiap=i=pe)eh*! 
eleielee ja pepe κόρ». dear’ feted Πέστε ὐσε εν Peed Fe ded ybeday vv ΠΡ ΜΗῚ 
ἷ 48 - i" elesiaet ὦν me ὦ ΜΗ phe apd prrminieiei~l* 
ὁ με δ ἠδ μεν sie \o habe 
ΡΥ ΙΝ peje ἡ», δ δ διθ ον 
ὦ δ ιω σὺ φν σα 


"ον 


Πρ ier? 
paren pape te 
ae le ee 
ἡφι ον» 
ὁ νε ὁ bo δώ ἠδ ὐδ ὁ epee pr 


ma jeiebeie) ἰἀε ένα 
ὦ ejelsjee } 
he hm ee he pole \eleinrepere ie . 
jojmtoies ) * : edt 
Hf i tet et te je jolotojeperereieisieioie! 
jo |e a ielee aes jee ; aadeterased teste goessegt pinion a iticisis 
re ones ha pre - 
pie pete soot tb tiereis hy rte 


eeargren yey geste, 


gertuperetyegry ry \e 
᾿ " »ο» - 
μεν αὐτὸ αὐ αν αν δ - baie Φ μεν ἘΠΕ id ΟΣ 
ΤΣ νόνύνοιν ὃ ἡ μ᾽ μὲ tele ἐδ έδ πιο joi yebeielel pee) μὰν: } 
edge gst σε τ - μα ἐσ ον pape petelalerejele + abe »" “-᾿ τ αὐ raed Egat τ 
papel i@ ele aierer=ie) y= =? jopete |=jeyri siete ie '* " 
Said’ te } τὰν δ γετίν δ ο᾽) διε) οὶ νης 
τα τα τ σα hh tad titty Hedegtce tte te ΕΣ πα σετο 
pin γα σφ μριδ δ σὺ με μὴ: eae joie petoneitiab tele) eels ἐν ΡΥ 
ed \olnle frjole 
died 
i) 
jain oie lobe ἰδ σὺ» 


eine 
wie bons: ciistittesccyte eet apdgdededysheadgeeratodgees rer ed epaeyt 4 
Ραμ sae ΩΣ th ἧι ; bt 
Saevtetasodetbereet eres ΜΗ Sadar αὐ ty Preceed | δι ,ο᾽ο, οὐ») 
hm jaja λα μέ δ σι δ τσ, Φγ,δήφ δ γ6 1} }4 δ Φ. ΤΙ δ Φ ΦΙΦΊΦΊΦΟΙ τ et joieioinl> 
ea pate ia paielelaisie av τυ “44 .. ahah ὦ ps ee poi) b> ἵ jain he μδμο ἐκ σὺ δ δὶ + ee! 
$4 μ᾿ ᾿ fe 1 PIbcepecaprecueseseeste® ΜΟΥ fed reragers ded 5604 rare rg γε νων.» σώ 
- lied ἡ» a ΠΣ “ἐσ ο ᾿ . 
᾿ please ΒΕΡΉΡΙΣΌΗ ΡΣ greet isisinineteisttyateticgeetensisiste 
one epee od πη Γ μ- a sLiaididytieladerebepeisieri itis iia } 
ΠΗ ΜῊΝ tet ΠΤ ΤΥ ΤΑ ΤΗΣ terrier ntti ΠΕΣ ΤΟΣ ἘΣ τὴ 
led ret jahehele } 
ria Serna bat rveday ΤΥ τὸ pepereie peice it yh td hake! pores de 
jo hoberetepess hoje less | ἢν με joists ) κατ κήζε ξόχόψη 
Inpesichesey αὐστε jajote’ ἰδ), lore itieiele it) τη) jee μὸν γμ γὼ ia deh=)e) 
he bala painj=ioiatebe!= is μετ. ΡΣ ΠΝ pereiaiolel’ δὴ» pole οἰ οι yon ep μοναὶ 
ΠΗ ΡΡΉ ΡΝ ΡΠ ΗΠ ΕΠ εν τα τ σε τε yy } ib hin joleie > <b 
pinnate nbn inert na oaeeet te itt terete. fi 
- + τὰ * ? hd ΨΥ y 
cinta hiohitoehibeitemmne tiie isisitie petals tat} Ἢ [τόνε τότν δ ὁ δ» εὐ δι)οιϊδιο 
ΗΜ ΠΠΉΣΝ Elisesatgsenrtesreyvevaseya? eM Mates sreapceay ish 
ep edip es vous μοι» 4,9}. - οι» yepejotel® apohereret ΠΩ pore rey Ls 
ΤΥ pee: ΠΩΣ s- ols regs OCC EE NE SET aL ἐν δ ν etne ent 2 ΕΑ ΦΨΎΡΥΓ ΟΝ pe pe)>)* ΜΡ joys 
a) bore)e}e. . jaier Sededed ences τ ΤῊ pore tepelepeteieie)sieie ἀ)ο νος μος φὐνν σἠδυνόφο τι» 
oieceiel γον } sen τ αν vot με δ δυο τ αέχέενα ἐπ αν αν Ἀν ν δν  ὀτάτα τεγο riety πηγοιόμ δὶς 
sbididisichsiete ἐν δ δ, ἀν γε τέσ ohn ἀὐσυ»υευσυν δ. 
joie ἡ δ)φὶν ὑφ) ὁ ἐφ ἐδὺκι ἡ" 


jo eho pee belo )*) +) apeo)rimpei> 
jal be 


ΡΟ ΨΥ 


ninja iajobelaiaielsjapeteb=i* γι κε σὺν 

ΠΝ τ γοὶ ΠΣ μμμ δ ik τα τότ χϑ γ τύ δν ΡΤ pond αν εἰ tee tas 

ἰδ με) σ δ) δ μὴν: μενα δὴ οἰ οὶ ισικ i= γε εν», δ) δὁ οὐ δὴ vate 

μὴ ηϑ δ ῥδ)ογο δ ισ διδο ΤΕΥ Δ ΣΥΝ ἐγ ὑ τύχη γε γύ τό νον 
ὦ γ ν ἐν τ». έεὐς cote latetepepapobetelemeispabere 


